SPEECH 


OF 


WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD, 


ON  THE 


ADMISSION  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


DELIVERED 


IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES, 


MARCH    11,  1850. 


TOTAM  REMPUBLICAM  VOS  IN  HAC  CAUSA  TENETIS. 


WASHINGTON : 

PRINTED  AND  FOR  SALE  BY  15UELL  &  BLANCIIARD, 

Sixth  street,  south  of  Pennsylvania  avenue. 

1850. 


SPEECH 


OF 


WILLIAM  H-:  1S 


ON  THE 


ADMISSION  OF  CALIFORNIA, 


DELIVERED 


IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,, 


MARCH    11,  1850. 


TOTAM  REMPUBLICAM  VOS  IN  HAC  CAUSA  TENETIS.. 


WASHINGTON  : 

PRINTED  AND  FOR  SALE  BY  BUELL  &  BLANCHARD, 

Sixth  street,  south  of  Pennsylvania  avenue. 

1850. 


I  u  1 

Bancroft  Library 


SPEECH. 

IN  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  MARCH  11, 1850, 


The  resolution,  submitted  by  Mr.  BENTON,  proposing  to 
instruct  the  Committee  on  Territories  to  introduce  a  bill  for  the 
admission  of  California,  disconnected  from  all  other  subjects, 
being  under  consideration — 

MR.  SEWARD  rose  and  said  : 

MR.  PRESIDENT  :  Four  years  ago,  California,  a  Mexican 
Province,  scarcely  inhabited  and  quite  unexplored,  was  unknown 
even  to  our  usually  immoderate  desires,  except  by  a  harbor, 
capacious  and  tranquil,  which  only  statesmen  then  foresaw 
would  be  useful  in  the  oriental  commerce  of  a  far  distant,  if 
not  merely  chimerical,  future. 

A  year  ago,  California  was  a  mere  military  dependency  of  our 
own,  and  we  were  celebrating  with  unanimity  and  enthusiasm  its 
acquisition,  with  its  newly-discovered  but  yet  untold  and 
untouched  mineral  wealth,  as  the  most  auspicious  of  many  and 
unparalleled  achievements. 

To-day,  California  is  a  State,  more  populous  than  the  least 
and  richer  than  several  of  the  greatest  of  our  thirty  States. 
This  same  California,  thus  rich  and  populous,  is  here  asking 
admission  into  the  Union,  and  finds  us  debating  the  dissolution 
of  the  Union  itself. 

No  wonder  if  we  are  perplexed  with  ever-changing  embarrass 
ments  !  No  wonder  if  we  are  appalled  by  ever-increasing 
responsibilities  !  No  wonder  if  we  are  bewildered  by  the  ever- 
augmenting  magnitude  and  rapidity  of  national  vicissitudes  ! 

SHALL  CALIFORNIA  BE  RECEIVED  1  For  myself,  upon  my 
individual  judgment  and  conscience,  I  answer,  Yes.  For  myself, 
as  an  instructed  representative  of  one  of  the  States,  of  that  one 
even  of  the  States  which  is  soonest  and  longest  to  be  pressed  in 


commercial  and  political  rivalry  by  the  new  Commonwealth,  I 
answer,  Yes.  Let  California  come  in.  Every  new  State,, 
whether  she  come  from  the  East  or  from  the  West,  every  new 
State,  coming  from  whatever  part  of  the  continent  she  may,  is 
always  welcome.  But  California,  that  comes  from  the  clime 
where  the  west  dies  away  into  the  rising  east ;  California,  that 
bounds  at  once  the  empire  and  the  continent ;  California,  the 
youthful  queen  of  the  Pacific,  in  her  robes  of  freedom,  gorgeously 
inlaid  with  gold — is  doubly  welcome. 

And  now  I  inquire,  first,  Why  should  California  be  rejected  ? 
All  the  objections  are  founded  only  in  the  circumstances  of  her 
coming,  and  in  the  organic  law .  which  she  presents  for  our 
confirmation. 

1st.  California  comes  UNCEREMONIOUSLY,  without  a  prelimi 
nary  consent  of  Congress,  and  therefore  by  usurpation.  This 
allegation,  I  think,  is  not  quite  true  ;  at  least  not  quite  true  in 
spirit.  California  is  here  not  of  her  own  pure  volition.  We 
tore  California  violently  from  her  place  in  the  Confederation  of 
Mexican  States,  and  stipulated,  by  the  treaty  of  Guadalupe 
Hidalgo,  that  the  territory  should  be  admitted  by  States  into 
the  American  Union  as  speedily  as  possible. 

But  the  letter  of  the  objection  still  holds.  California  does 
come  without  having  obtained  a  preliminary  consent  of  Congress 
to  form  a  Constitution.  But  Michigan  and  other  States  pre 
sented  themselves  in  the  same  unauthorized  way,  and  Congress 
waived  the  irregularity^  and  sanctioned  the  usurpation.  Cali 
fornia  pleads  these  precedents.  Is  not  the  plea  sufficient  1 

But  it  has  been  said  by  the  honorable  Senator  from  South 
Carolina,  [Mr.  CALHOUN,]  that  the  Ordinance  of  1*787  secured 
to  Michigan  the  right  to  become  a  State,  when  she  should  have 
sixty  thousand  inhabitants,  and  that,  owing  to  some  neglect^ 
Congress  delayed  taking  the  census.  This  is  said  in  palliation 
of  the  irregularity  of  Michigan.  But  California,  as  has  been 
seen,  had  a  treaty,  and  Congress,  instead  of  giving  previous 
consent,  and  instead  of  giving  her  the  customary  Territorial 
Government,  as  they  did  to  Michigan,  failed  to  do  either,  and 
thus  practically  refused  both,  and  so  abandoned  the  new 
community,  under  most  unpropitious  circumstances,  to  anarchy. 
California  then  made  a  Constitution  for  herself,  but  not 
unnecessarily  and  presumptuously,  as  Michigan  did.  She  made 


a  Constitution  for  herself,  and  she  comes  here  under  the  law,  the 
paramount  law,  of  self-preservation. 

In  that  she  stands  justified.  Indeed,  California  is  more  than 
justified.  She  was  a  colony r,  a  military  colony.  All  colonies, 
especially  military  colonies,  are  incongruous  with  our  political 
system,  and  they  are  equally  open  to  corruption  and  exposed  to 
oppression.  They  are,  therefore,  not  more  unfortunate  in  their 
own  proper  condition  than  fruitful  of  dangers  to  the  parent 
Democracy.  California,  then,  acted  wisely  and  well  in  estab 
lishing  self-government.  She  deserves  not  rebuke,  but  praise 
and  approbation.  Nor  does  this  objection  come  with  a  good 
grace  from  those  who  offer  it.  If  California  were  now  content 
to  receive  only  a  Territorial  charter,  we  could  not  agree  to  grant 
it  without  an  inhibition  of  slavery,  which,  in  that  case,  being  a 
Federal  act,  would  render  the  attitude  of  California,  as  a 
Territory,  even  more  offensive  to  those  who  now  repel  her  than 
she  is  as  a  State,  with  the  same  inhibition  in  the  Constitution 
of  her  own  voluntary  choice. 

A  second  objection  is,  that  California  has  assigned  her  own 
boundaries  without  the  previous  authority  of  Congress.  But 
she  was  left  to  organize  herself  without  any  boundaries  fixed  by 
previous  law  or  by  prescription.  She  was  obliged,  therefore,  to 
assume  boundaries,  since  without  boundaries  she  must  have 
remained  unorganized. 

A  third  objection  is,  that  California  is  too  large. 

I  answer,  first,  there  is  no  common  standard  of  States.  Cali 
fornia,  although  greater  than  many,  is  less  than  one  of  the 
States. 

Secondly.  California,  if  too  large,  may  be  divided  with  her 
own  consent,  and  a  similar  provision  is  all  the  security  we  have 
for  reducing  the  magnitude  and  averting  the  preponderance  of 
Texas. 

Thirdly.  The  boundaries  of  California  seem  not  at  all 
unnatural.  The  territory  circumscribed  is  altogether  contig 
uous  and  compact. 

Fourthly.  The  boundaries  are  convenient.  They  embrace 
only  inhabited  portions  of  the  country,  commercially  connected 
with  the  port  of  San  Francisco.  No  one  has  pretended  to  offer 
boundaries  more  in  harmony  with  the  physical  outlines  of  the 
region  concerned,  or  more  convenient  for  civil  administration. 


6 

But  to  draw  closer  to  the  question,  What  shall  be  the  bound 
aries  of  a  new  State  ?  concerns — 

First.  The  State  herself;  and  California  of  course  is  content. 

Secondly.  Adjacent  communities  ;  Oregon  does  not  complain 
of  encroachment,  and  there  is  no  other  adjacent  community  to 
complain. 

Thirdly.  The  other  States  of  the  Union;  the  larger  the 
Pacific  States,  the  smaller  will  be  their  relative  power  in  the 
Senate.  All  the  States  now  here  are  either  Atlantic  States  or 
inland  States,  and  surely  they  may  well  indulge  California  in  the 
largest  liberty  of  boundaries. 

The  fourth  objection  to  the  admission  of  California  is,  that 
no  census  had  been  taken,  and  no  laws  prescribing  the  qualifi 
cations  of  suffrage  and  the  apportionment  of  Representatives  in 
Convention,  existed  before  her  Convention  was  held. 

I  answer,  California  was  left  to  act  ab  initio.  She  must 
begin  somewhere,  without  a  census,  and  without  such  laws. 
The  Pilgrim  Fathers  began  in  the  same  way  on  board  the  May 
flower  ;  and,  since  it  has  been  objected  that  some  of  the  electors 
in  California  may  have  been  aliens,  I  add,  that  all  of  the 
Pilgrims  Fathers  were  aliens  and  strangers  to  the  Common 
wealth  of  Plymouth. 

Again,  the  objection  may  well  be  waived,  if  the  Constitution 
of  California  is  satisfactory,  first  to  herself,  secondly  to  the 
United  States. 

Not  a  murmur  of  discontent  has  followed  California  to  this 
place. 

As  to  ourselves,  we  confine  our  inquiries  about  the  Consti 
tution  of  a  new  State  to  four  things — 

1st.  The  boundaries  assumed ;  and  I  have  considered  that 
point  in  this  case  already. 

2d.  That  the  domain  within  the  State  is  secured  to  us  ;  and 
it  is  admitted  that  this  has  been  properly  done. 

3d.  That  the  Constitution  shall  be  republican,  and  not 
aristocratic  and  monarchical.  In  this  case  the  only  objection 
is,  that  the  Constitution,  inasmuch  as  it  inhibits  slavery,  is 
altogether  too  republican. 

4th.  That  the  representation  claimed  shall  be  just  and 
equal.  No  one  denies  that  the  population  of  California  is 
sufficient  to  demand  two  Representatives  on  the  Federal  basis  > 


and,  secondly,  a  new  census  is  at  hand,  and  the  error,  if  there 
is  one,  will  be  immediately  corrected. 

The  fifth  objection  is,  California  comes  under  Executive 
influence. 

1st.     In  her  coming  as  a  free  State. 

2d.     In  her  coming  at  all. 

The  first  charge  rests  on  suspicion  only,  is  peremptorily 
denied,  and  the  denial  is  not  controverted  by  proofs.  I  dismiss 
it  altogether. 

The  second  is  true,  to  the  extent  that  the  President  advised 
the  people  of  California,  that,  having  been  left  without  any 
civil  government,  under  the  military  supervision  of  the  Exec 
utive,  without  any  authority  of  law  whatever,  their  adoption  of 
a  Constitution,  subject  to  the  approval  of  Congress,  would  be 
regarded  favorably  by  the  President.  Only  a  year  ago,  it  was 
complained  that  the  exercise  of  the  military  power  to  maintain 
law  and  order  in  California,  was  a  fearful  innovation.  But  now 
the  wind  has  changed,  and  blows  even  stronger  from  the  opposite 
quarter. 

May  this  Republic  never  have  a  President  commit  a  more 
serious  or  more  dangerous  usurpation  of  power  than  the  act  of 
the  present  eminent  Chief  Magistrate,  in  endeavoring  to  induce 
legislative  authority  to  relieve  him  from  the  exercise  of  military 
power,  by  establishing  civil  institutions  regulated  by  law  in 
distant  provinces  !  Rome  would  have  been  standing  this  day, 
if  she  had  had  only  such  generals,  and  such  tribunes. 

But  the  objection,  whether  true  in  part,  or  even  in  the  whole, 
is  immaterial.  The  question  is,  not  what  moved  California  to 
impress  any  particular  feature  on  her  Constitution,  nor  even 
what  induced  her  to  adopt  a  Constitution  at  all ;  but  it  is 
whether,  since  she  has  adopted  a  Constitution,  she  shall  be 
admitted  into  the  Union. 

I  have  now  reviewed  all  the  objections  raised  against  the 
admission  of  California.  It  is  seen  that  they  have  no  foundation 
in  the  law  of  nature  and  of  nations.  Nor  are  they  founded  in 
the  Constitution,  for  the  Constitution  prescribes  no  form  or 
manner  of  proceeding  in  the  admission  of  new  States,  but  leaves 
the  whole  to  the  discretion  of  Congress.  "  Congress  may  admit 
new  States."  The  objections  are  all  merely  formal  and 
technical.  They  rest  on  precedents  which  have  not  always,  nor 


8 

even  generally,  been  observed.     But  it  is  said  that  we  ought 
now  to  establish  a  safe  precedent  for  the  future. 

I  answer,  1st :  It  is  too  late  to  seize  this  occasion  for  that 
purpose.  The  irregularities  complained  of  being  unavoidable, 
the  caution  should  have  been  exercised  when,  1st,  Texas  was 
annexed ;  2d,  when  we  waged  war  against  Mexico  ;  or,  3d, 
when  we  ratified  the  treaty  of  Guadalupe  Hidalgo. 

I  answer,  2d  :  We  may  establish  precedents  at  pleasure. 
Our  successors  will  exercise  their  pleasure  about  following 
them,  just  as  we  have  done  in  such  cases. 

I  answer,  3d  :  States,  nations,  and  empires,  are  apt  to  be 
peculiarly  capricious,  riot  only  as  to  the  time,  but  even  as  to  the 
manner )  of  their  being  born,  and  as  to  their  subsequent  political 
changes.  They  are  not  accustomed  to  conform  to  precedents. 
California  sprang  from  the  head  of  the  nation,  not  only  complete 
in  proportions  and  full  armed,  but  ripe  for  affiliation  with  its 
members. 

I  proceed  now  to  state  my  reasons  for  the  opinion  that  CALI 
FORNIA  OUGHT  TO  BE  ADMITTED.  The  population  of  the  United 
States  consists  of  natives  of  Caucasian  origin,  and  exotics  of  the 
same  derivation.  The  native  mass  rapidly  assimilates  to  itself 
and  absorbs  the  exotic,  and  thus  these  constitute  one  homoge 
neous  people.  The  African  race,  bond  and  free,  and  the 
aborigines,  savage  and  civilized,  being  incapable  of  such 
assimilation  and  absorption,  remain  distinct,  and,  owing  to  their 
peculiar  condition,  they  constitute  inferior  masses,  and  may  be 
regarded  as  accidental  if  not  disturbing  political  forces.  The 
ruling  homogeneous  family  planted  at  first  on  the  Atlantic  shore, 
and  following  an  obvious  law,  is  seen  continually  and  rapidly 
spreading  itself  westward  year  by  year,  subduing  the  wilderness 
and  the  prairie,  and  thus  extending  this  great  political  com 
munity,  which,  as  fast  as  it  advances,  breaks  into  distinct 
States  for  municipal  purposes  only,  while  the  whole  constitutes 
one  entire  contiguous  and  compact  nation. 

Well-established  calculations  in  political  arithmetic  enable  us 
to  say  that  the  aggregate  population  of  the  nation 
now  is     -  -  -  22,000,000 

That  10  years  hence  it  will  be    -  -     30,000,000 

That  20  years  hence  it  will  be    -         -         -         -     38,000,000 
That  30  years  hence  it  will  be    -  -     50,000,000 


That  40  years  hence  it  will  be  -  64,000,000 

That  50  years  hence  it  will  be  -  80,000,000 

That  100  years  hence,  that  is,  in  the  year  1950, 

it  will  be   -  200,000,000 

equal  nearly  to  one-fourth  of  the  present  aggregate  population 
of  the  globe,  and  double  the  population  of  Europe  at  the  time 
of  the  discovery  of  America.  But  the  advance  of  population  on 
the  Pacific  will  far  exceed  what  has  heretofore  occurred  on  the 
Atlantic  coast,  while  emigration  even  here  is  outstripping  the 
calculations  on  which  the  estimates  are  based.  There  are  silver 
and  gold  in  the  mountains  and  ravines  of  California.  The 
granite  of  New  England  and  New  York  is  barren. 

Allowing  due  consideration  to  the  increasing  density  of  our 
population,  we  are  safe  in  assuming,  that  long  before  this  mass 
shall  have  attained  the  maximum  of  numbers  indicated,  the 
entire  width  of  our  possessions  from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Pacific 
ocean  will  be  covered  by  it,  and  be  brought  into  social  maturity 
and  complete  political  organization. 

The  question  now  arises,  Shall  this  one  great  people,  having 
a  common  origin,  a  common  language,  a  common  religion, 
common  sentiments,  interests,  sympathies,  and  hopes,  remain 
one  political  State,  one  Nation,  one  Republic,  or  shall  it  be 
broken  into  two  conflicting  and  probably  hostile  Nations  or 
Republics'?  There  cannot  ultimately  be  more  than  two;  for 
the  habit  of  association  is  already  formed,  as  the  interests  of 
mutual  intercourse  are  being  formed.  It  is  already  ascertained 
where  the  centre  of  political  power  must  rest.  It  must  rest  in 
the  agricultural  interests  and  masses,  who.will  occupy  the  interior 
of  the  continent.  These  masses,  if  they  cannot  all  command 
access  to  both  oceans,  will  not  be  obstructed  in  their  approaches 
to  that  one,  which  offers  the  greatest  facilities  to  their  commerce. 

Shall  the  American  people,  then,  be  divided?  Before 
deciding  on  this  question,  let  us  consider  our  position,  our  power, 
and  capabilities. 

The  world  contains  no  seat  of  empire  so  magnificent  as  this ; 
which,  while  it  embraces  all  the  varying  climates  of  the  terfl- 
perate  zone,  and  is  traversed  by  wide  expanding  lakes  and  long- 
branching  rivers,  offers  supplies  on  the  Atlantic  shores  to  the 
over-crowded  nations  of  Europe,  while  on  the  Pacific  coast  it 
intercepts  the  commerce  of  the  Indies.  The  nation  thus 


10 

situated,  and  enjoying  forest,  mineral,  and  agricultural  resources 
unequalled,  if  endowed  also  with  moral  energies  adequate  to  the 
achievement  of  great  enterprises,  and  favored  with  a  Govern 
ment  adapted  to  their  character  and  condition,  must  command 
the  empire  of  the  seas,  which  alone  is  real  empire. 

We  think  that  we  may  claim  to  have  inherited  physical  and 
intellectual  vigor,  courage,  invention,  and  enterprise  ;  and  the 
systems  of  education  prevailing  among  us  open  to  all  the  stores 
of  human  science  and  art. 

The  old  world  and  the  past  were  allotted  by  Providence  to 
the  pupilage  of  mankind,  under  the  hard  discipline  of  arbitrary 
power,  quelling  the  violence  of  human  passions.  The  new 
world  and  the  future  seem  to  have  been  appointed  for  the 
maturity  of  mankind,  with  the  development  of  self-government 
operating  in  obedience  to  reason  and  judgment. 

We  have  thoroughly  tried  our  novel  system  of  Democratic 
Federal  Government,  with  its  complex,  yet  harmonious  and 
effective  combination  of  distinct  local  elective  agencies,  for  the 
conduct  of  domestic  affairs,  and  its  common  central  elective  agen 
cies,  for  the  regulation  of  internal  interests  and  of  intercourse  with 
foreign  nations  ;  and  we  know  that  it  is  a  system  equally  cohesive 
in  its  parts,  and  capable  of  all  desirable  expansion  ;  and  that  it  is 
a  system,  moreover,  perfectly  adapted  to  secure  domestic  tran 
quillity,  while  it  brings  into  activity  all  the  elements  of  national 
aggrandizement.  The  Atlantic  States,  through  their  com 
mercial,  social,  and  political  affinities  and  sympathies,  are 
steadily  renovating  the  Governments  and  the  social  constitutions 
of  Europe  and  of  Africa.  The  Pacific  States  must  necessarily 
perform  the  same  sublime  and  beneficent  functions  in  Asia.  If, 
then,  the  American  people  shall  remain  an  undivided  nation,  the 
ripening  civilization  of  the  West,  after  a  separation  growing 
wider  and  wider  for  four  thousand  years,  will,  in  its  circuit  of 
the  world,  meet  again  and  mingle  with  the  declining  civilization 
of  the  East  on  our  own  free  soil,  and  a  new  and  more  perfect 
civilization  will  arise  to  bless  the  earth,  under  the  sway  of  our 
own  cherished  and  beneficent  democratic  institutions. 

We  may  then  reasonably  hope  for  greatness,  felicity,  and 
renown,  excelling  any  hitherto  attained  by  any  nation,  if, 
standing  firmly  on  the  continent,  we  loose  not  our  grasp  on  the 
shore  of  either  ocean.  Whether  a  destiny  so  magnificent  would 


11 

be  only  partially  defeated,  or  whether  it  would  be  altogether 
lost,  by  a  relaxation  of  that  grasp,  surpasses  our  wisdom  to 
determine,  and  happily  it  is  not  important  to  be  determined. 
It  is  enough,  if  we  agree  that  expectations  so  grand,  yet  so 
reasonable  and  so  just,  ought  not  to  be  in  any  degree  disap 
pointed.  And  now  it  seems  to  me  that  the  perpetual  unity  of 
the  Empire  hangs  on  the  decision  of  this  day  and  of  this  hour. 

California  is  already  a  State,  a  complete  and  fully  appointed 
State.  She  never  again  can  be  less  than  that.  She  can  never 
again  be  a  province  or  a  colony ;  nor  can  she  be  made  to  shrink 
and  shrivel  into  the  proportions  of  a  federal  dependent  Terri 
tory.  California,  then,  henceforth  and  forever,  must  be,  what 
she  is  now,  a  State. 

The  question  whether  she  shall  be  one  of  the  United  States 
of  America  has  depended  on  her  and  on  us.  Her  election  has 
been  made.  Our  consent  alone  remains  suspended ;  and  that 
consent  must  be  pronounced  now  or  never.  I  say  now  or  never. 
Nothing  prevents  it  now,  but  want  of  agreement  among  our 
selves.  Our  harmony  cannot  increase  while  this  question 
remains  open.  We  shall  never  agree  to  admit  California,  unless 
we  agree  now.  Nor  will  California  abide  delay.  I  do  not  say 
that  she  contemplates  independence  ;  but,  if  she  does  not,  it  is 
because  she  does  not  anticipate  rejection.  Do  you  say  that  she 
can  have  no  motive  1  Consider,  then,  her  attitude,  if  rejected. 
She  needs  a  Constitution,  a  Legislature,  and  Magistrates  ;  she 
needs  titles  to  that  golden  domain  of  yours  within  her  borders  ; 
good  titles,  too  ;  and  you  must  give  them  on  your  own  terms,  or 
she  must  take  them  without  your  leave.  She  needs  a  mint,  a 
custom-house,  wharves,  hospitals,  and  institutions  of  learning ; 
she  needs  fortifications,  and  roads,  and  railroads  ;  she  needs  the 
protection  of  an  army  and  a  navy ;  either  your  stars  and  stripes 
must  wave  over  her  ports  and  her  fleets,  or  she  must  raise  aloft 
a  standard  for  herself;  she  needs,  at  least,  to  know  whether  you 
are*  friends  or  enemies ;  and,  finally,  she  needs,  what  no  Amer 
ican  community  can  live  without,  sovereignty  and  independ 
ence — either  a  just  and  equal  share  of  yours,  or  sovereignty  and 
independence  of  her  own. 

Will  you  say  that  California  could  not  aggrandize  herself  by 
separation  ?  Would  it,  then,  be  a  mean  ambition  to  set  up 
within  fifty  years,  on  the  Pacific  coast,  monuments  like  those- 


12 

which  we  think  two  hundred  years  have  been  well   spent  in 
establishing  on  the  Atlantic  coast  1 

Will  you  say  that  California  has  no  ability  to  become  inde 
pendent  1  She  has  the  same  moral  ability  for  enterprise  that 
inheres  in  us,  and  that  ability  implies  command  of  all  physical 
means.  She  has  advantages  of  position.  She  is  practically 
further  removed  from  us  than  England.  We  cannot  reach  her 
by  railroad,  nor  by  unbroken  steam  navigation.  We  can  send 
no  armies  over  the  prairie,  the  mountain,  and  the  desert,  nor 
across  the  remote  and  narrow  Isthmus  within  a  foreign  jurisdic 
tion,  nor  around  the  Cape  of  Storms.  We  may  send  a  navy 
there,  but  she  has  only  to  open  her  mines,  and  she  can  seduce 
our  navies  and  appropriate  our  floating  bulwarks  to  her  own 
defence.  Let  her  only  seize  our  domain  within  her  borders, 
and  our  commerce  in  her  ports,  and  she  will  have  at  once  reve 
nues  and  credit  adequate  to  all  her  necessities.  Besides,  are  we 
so  moderate,  and  has  the  world  become  so  just,  that  we  have  no 
rivals  and  no  enemies  to  lend  their  sympathies  and  aid  to  com 
pass  the  dismemberment  of  our  empire  ? 

Try  not  the  temper  and  fidelity  of  California — at  least  not 
now,  not  yet.  Cherish  her  and  indulge  her  until  you  have  ex 
tended  your  settlements  to  her  borders,  and  bound  her  fast  by 
railroads,  and  canals,  and  telegraphs,  to  your  interests — until 
her  affinities  of  intercourse  are  established,  and  her  habits  of 
loyalty  are  fixed — and  then  she  can  never  be  disengaged. 

California  would  not  go  alone.  Oregon,  so  intimately  allied  to 
her,  and  as  yet  so  loosely  attached  to  us,  would  go  also  ;  and 
then  at  least  the  entire  Pacific  coast,  with  the  western  declivity 
of  the  Sierra  Nevada,  would  be  lost.  It  would  not  depend  at 
all  upon  us,  nor  even  on  the  mere  forbearance  of  California,  how 
far  eastward  the  long  line  across  the  temperate  zone  should  be 
drawn,  which  should  separate  the  Republic  of  the  Pacific  from 
the  Republic  of  the  Atlantic.  Terminus  has  passed  away,  with 
all  the  deities  of  the  ancient  Pantheon,  but  his  sceptre  remains. 
Commerce  is  the  God  of  boundaries,  and  no  man  now  living  can 
foretell  his  ultimate  decree. 

But  it  is  insisted  that  the  admission  of  California  shall  be 
attended  by  a  COMPROMISE  of  questions  which  have  arisen  out 

Of  SLAVERY  ! 

I   AM  OPPOSED  TO  ANY  SUCH    COMPROMISE,  IN    ANY    AND    ALL 


13 

THE    FORMS  IN  WHICH  IT  HAS  BEEN    PROPOSED  ;    because,  while 

admitting  the  purity  and  the  patriotism  of  all  from  whom  it  is 
my  misfortune  to  differ,  I  think  all  legislative  compromises,  not 
absolutely  necessary,  radically  wrong  and  essentially  vicious. 
They  involve  the  surrender  of  the  exercise  of  judgment  and 
conscience  on  distinct  and  separate  questions,  at  distinct  and 
separate  times,  with  the  indispensable  advantages  it  affords  for 
ascertaining  truth.  They  involve  a  relinquishment  of  the  right 
to  reconsider  in  future  the  decisions  of  the  present,  on  questions 
prematurely  anticipated.  And  they  are  acts  of  usurpation  as  to 
future  questions  of  the  province  of  future  legislators. 

Sir,  it  seems  to  me  as  if  slavery  had  laid  its  paralyzing  hand 
upon  myself,  and  the  blood  were  coursing  less  freely  than  its 
wont  through  my  veins,  when  I  endeavor  to  suppose  that  such 
a  compromise  has  been  effected,  and  that  my  utterance  forever  is 
arrested  upon  all  the  great  questions — social,  moral,  and  polit 
ical — arising  out  of  a  subject  so  important,  and  as  yet  so  incom 
prehensible. 

What  am  I  to  receive  in  this  compromise  1  Freedom  in 
California.  It  is  well ;  it  is  a  noble  acquisition ;  it  is  worth  a 
sacrifice.  But  what  am  I  to  give  as  an  equivalent  1  A  recog 
nition  of  the  claim  to  perpetuate  slavery  in  the  District  of 
Columbia ;  forbearance  towards  more  stringent  laws  concerning 
the  arrest  of  persons  suspected  of  being  slaves  found  in  the  free 
States ;  forbearance  from  the  Proviso  of  Freedom  in  the 
charters  of  new  Territories.  None  of  the  plans  of  compromise 
offered  demand  less  than  two,  and  most  of  them  insist  on  all  of 
these  conditions.  The  equivalent,  then,  is,  some  portion  of 
liberty,  some  portion  of  human  rights  in  one  region  for  liberty 
in  another  region.  But  California  brings  gold  and  commerce  as 
well  as  freedom.  I  am,  then,  to  surrender  some  portion  of 
human  freedom  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  and  in  East  Cali 
fornia  and  New  Mexico,  for  the  mixed  consideration  of  liberty, 
gold,  and  power,  on  the  Pacific  coast. 

This  view  of  legislative  compromises  is  not  new.  It  has 
widely  prevailed,  and  many  of  the  State  Constitutions  interdict 
the  introduction  of  more  than  one  subject  into  one  bill  submitted 
for  legislative  action. 

It  was  of  such  compromises  that  Burke  said,  in  one  of  the 
loftiest  bursts  of  even  his  majestic  parliamentary  eloquence  : 


14 

"  Far,  far  from  the  Commons  of  Great  Britain  be  all  manner  of  real 
vice ;  but  ten  thousand  times  farther  from  them,  as  far  as  from  pole  to  pole, 
be  the  whole  tribe  of  spurious,  affected,  counterfeit,  and  hypocritical  vir 
tues  !  These  are  the  things  which  are  ten  thousand  times  more  at  war 
with  real  virtue,  these  are  the  things  which  are  ten  thousand  times  more  at 
war  with  real  duty,  than  any  vice  known  by  its  name  and  distinguished  by 
its  proper  character. 

"  Far,  far  from  us  be  that  false  and  affected  candor  that  is  eternally  in 
treaty  with  crime — that  half  virtue,  which,  like  the  ambiguous  animal  that 
flies  about  in  the  twilight  of  a  compromise  between  day  and  night,  is,  to  a 
just  man's  eye,  an  odious  and  disgusting  thing.  There  is  no  middle  point, 
my  Lords,  in  which  the  Commons  of  Great  Britain  can  meet  tyranny  and 
oppression." 

But,  sir,  if  I  could  overcome  my  repugnance  to  compromises 
in  general,  I  should  object  to  this  one,  on  the  ground  of  the 
inequality  and  incongruity  of  the  interests  to  be  compromised. 
Why,  sir,  according  to  the  views  I  have  submitted,  California 
ought  to  come  in,  and  must  come  in,  whether  slavery  stand  or 
fall  in  the  District  of  Columbia  ;  whether  slavery  stand  or  fall 
in  New  Mexico  and  Eastern  California ;  and  even  whether 
slavery  stand  or  fall  in  the  slave  States.  California  ought  to 
come  in,  being  a  free  State ;  and,  under  the  circumstances  of 
her  conquest,  her  compact,  her  abandonment,  her  justifiable  and 
necessary  establishment  of  a  Constitution,  and  the  inevitable 
dismemberment  of  the  empire  consequent  upon  her  rejection,  I 
should  have  voted  for  her  admission  even  if  she  had  come  as  a 
slave  State.  California  ought  to  come  in,  and  must  come  in  at 
all  events.  It  is,  then,  an  independent,  a  paramount  question. 
What,  then,  are  these  questions  arising  out  of  slavery,  thus 
interposed,  but  collateral  questions  ?  They  are  unnecessary 
and  incongruous,  and  therefore  false  issues,  not  introduced 
designedly,  indeed,  to  defeat  that  great  policy,  yet  unavoidably 
tending  to  that  end. 

Mr.  FOOTE.  Will  the  honorable  Senator  allow  me  to  ask 
him,  if  the  Senate  is  to  understand  him  as  saying  that  he  would 
vote  for  the  admission  of  California  if  she  came  here  seeking 
admission  as  a  slave  State  ? 

Mr.  SEWARD.  I  reply,  as  I  said  before,  that  even  if 
California  had  come  as  a  slave  State,  yet  coming  under  the 
extraordinary  circumstances  I  have  described,  and  in  view  of  the 
consequences  of  a  dismemberment  of  the  empire,  consequent 


15 

upon  her  rejection,  I  should  have  voted  for  her  admission,  even 
though  she  had  come  as  a  slave  State.  But  I  should  not  have 
voted  for  her  admission  otherwise. 

I  remark  in  the  next  place,  that  consent  on  my  part  would  be 
•disingenuous  and  fraudulent,  because  the  compromise  would  be 
unavailing. 

It  is  now  avowed  by  the  honorable  Senator  from  South 
Carolina,  [Mr.  CALHOUN,]  that  nothing  will  satisfy  the  slave 
States  but  a  compromise  that  will  convince  them  that  they  can 
remain  in  the  Union  consistently  with  their  honor  and  their 
safety.  And  what  are  the  concessions  which  will  have  that 
effect.  Here  they  are,  in  the  words  of  that  Senator  : 

"  The  North  must  do  justice  by  conceding  to  the  South  an  equal  right  in 
the  acquired  territory,  and  do  her  duty  by  causing  the  stipulations  relative 
to  fugitive  slaves  to  be  faithfully  fulfilled — cease  the  agitation  of  the  slave 
question,  and  provide  for  the  insertion  of  a  provision  in  the  Constitution, 
by  an  amendment,  which  will  restore  to  the  South  in  substance  the  power 
she  possessed,  of  protecting  herself,  before  the  equilibrium  between  the  sec 
tions  was  destroyed  by  the  action  of  this  Government." 

These  terms  amount  to  this :  that  the  free  States  having 
already,  or  although  they  may  hereafter  have,  majorities  of 
population,  and  majorities  in  both  Houses  of  Congress,  shall 
concede  to  the  slave  States,  being  in  a  minority  in  both,  the 
unequal  advantage  of  an  equality.  That  is,  that  we  shall  alter 
the  Constitution  so  as  to  convert  the  Government  from  a 
national  democracy,  operating  by  a  constitutional  majority  of 
voices,  into  a  Federal  alliance,  in  which  the  minority  shall  have 
a  veto  against  the  majority.  And  this  is  nothing  less  than  to 
return  to  the  original  Articles  of  Confederation. 

I  will  not  stop  to  protest  against  the  injustice  or  the  inexpe 
diency  of  an  innovation  which,  if  it  was  practicable,  would  be 
so  entirely  subversive  of  the  principle  of  democratic  institutions. 
It  is  enough  to  say  that  it  is  totally  impracticable.  The  free 
States,  Northern  and  Western,  have  acquiesced  in  the  long 
and  nearly  unbroken  ascendency  of  the  slave  States  under  the 
Constitution,  because  the  result  happened  under  the  Constitu 
tion.  But  they  have  honor  and  interests  to  preserve,  and  there 
is  nothing  in  the  nature  of  mankind  or  in  the  character  of  that 
people  to  induce  an  expectation  that  they,  loyal  as  they  are,  are 
insensible  to  the  duty  of  defending  them.  But  the  scheme 


16 

would  still  be  impracticable,  even  if  this  difficulty  were  over 
come.  What  is  proposed  is  a  political  equilibrium.  Every 
political  equilibrium  requires  a  physical  equilibrium  to  rest 
upon,  and  is  valueless  without  it.  To  constitute  a  physical 
equilibrium  between  the  slave  States  and  the  free  States, 
requires,  first,  an  equality  of  territory,  or  some  near  approxi 
mation.  And  this  is  already  lost.  But  it  requires  much  more 
than  this.  It  requires  an  equality  or  a  proximate  equality  in 
the  number  of  slaves  and  freemen.  And  this  must  be  perpetual. 

But  the  census  of  1840  gives  a  slave  basis  of  only  2,500,000, 
and  a  free  basis  of  14,500,000.  And  the  population  on  the  slave 
basis  increases  in  the  ratio  of  25  per  cent,  for  ten  years,  while 
that  on  the  free  basis  advances  at  the  rate  of  38  per  cent.  The 
accelerating  movement  of  the  free  population,  now  complained 
of,  will  occupy  the  new  Territories  with  pioneers,  and  every  day 
increases  the  difficulty  of  forcing  or  insinuating  slavery  into 
regions  which  freemen  have  pre-occupied.  And  if  this  were 
possible,  the  African  slave  trade  is  prohibited,  and  the  domestic 
increase  is  not  sufficient  to  supply  the  new  slave  States  which  are 
expected  to  maintain  the  equilibrium.  The  theory  of  a  new 
political  equilibrium  claims  that  it  once  existed,  and  has  been 
lost.  When  lost,  and  how  ?  It  began  to  be  lost  in  1787,  when 
preliminary  arrangements  were  made  to  admit  five  new  free 
States  in  the  Northwest  Territory,  two  years  before  the  Consti 
tution  was  finally  adopted  ;  that  is,  it  began  to  be  lost  two  years 
before  it  began  to  exist ! 

Sir,  the  equilibrium,  if  restored,  would  be  lost  again,  and  lost 
more  rapidly  than  it  was  before.  The  progress  of  the  free  popu 
lation  is  to  be  accelerated  by  increased  emigration,  and  by  new 
tides  from  South  America  and  from  Europe  and  Asia,  while  that 
of  the  slaves  is  to  be  checked  and  retarded  by  inevitable  partial 
emancipation.  "  Nothing,"  says  Montesquieu,  "  reduces  a  man 
so  low  as  always  to  see  freemen,  and  yet  not  be  free.  Persons 
in  that  condition  are  natural  enemies  of  the  State,  and  their 
numbers  would  be  dangerous  if  increased  too  high."  Sir,  the 
fugitive  slave  colonies  and  the  emancipated  slave  colonies  in  the 
free  States,  in  Canada,  and  in  Liberia,  are  the  best  guaranties 
South  Carolina  has  for  the  perpetuity  of  slavery. 

Nor  would  success  attend  any  of  the  details  of  the  compro 
mise.  And,  first,  I  advert  to  the  proposed  alteration  of  the  law 


IT 

concerning  fugitives  from  service  or  labor.  I  shall  speak  on 
this  as  on  all  subjects,  with  due  respect,  but  yet  frankly  and 
without  reservation.  The  Constitution  contains  only  a  compact, 
which  rests  for  its  execution  on  the  States.  Not  content  with 
this,  the  slave  States  induced  legislation  by  Congress ;  and  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  have  virtually  decided  that 
the  whole  subject  is  within  the  province  of  Congress,  and 
exclusive  of  State  authority.  Nay,  they  have  decided  that 
slaves  are  to  be  regarded  not  merely  as  persons  to  be  claimed, 
but  as  property  and  chattels,  to  be  seized  without  any  legal 
authority  or  claim  whatever.  The  compact  is  thus  subverted 
by  the  procurement  of  the  slave  States.  With  what  reason, 
then,  can  they  expect  the  States  ex  gratia  to  reassume  the 
obligations  from  which  they  caused  those  States  to  be  dis 
charged?  I  say,  then,  to  the  slave  States,  you  are  entitled  to 
no  more  stringent  laws ;  and  that  such  laws  would  be  useless. 
The  cause  of  the  inefficiency  of  the  present  statute  is  not  at  all 
the  leniency  of  its  provisions.  It  is  a  law  that  deprives  the 
alleged  refugee  from  a  legal  obligation  not  assumed  by  him,  but 
imposed  upon  him  by  laws  enacted  before  he  was  born,  of  the 
writ  of  habeas  cor  pus ,  and  of  any  certain  judicial  process  of 
examination  of  the  claim  set  up  by  his  pursuer,  and  finally 
degrades  him  into  a  chattel  which  may  be  seized  and  carried 
away  peaceably  wherever  found,  even  although  exercising  the 
rights  and  responsibilities  of  a  free  citizen  of  the  Common 
wealth  in  which  he  resides,  and  of  the  United  States — a  law 
which  denies  to  the  citizen  all  the  safeguards  of  personal  liberty, 
to  render  less  frequent  the  escape  of  the  bondman.  And  since 
complaints  are  so  freely  made  against  the  one  side,  I  shall  not 
hesitate  to  declare  that  there  have  been  even  greater  faults  on 
the  other  side.  Relying  on  the  perversion  of  the  Constitu 
tion  which  makes  slaves  mere  chattels,  the  slave  States  have 
applied  to  them  the  principles  of  the  criminal  law,  and  have 
held  that  he  who  aided  the  escape  of  his  fellow-man  from 
bondage  was  guilty  of  a  larceny  in  stealing  him.  I  speak  of 
what  I  know.  Two  instances  came  within  my  own  knowledge, 
in  which  Governors  of  slave  States,  under  the  provision  of  the 
Constitution  relating  to  fugitives  from  justice,  demanded  from 
the  Governor  of  a  free  State  the  surrender  of  persons  as  thieves 
whose  alleged  offences  consisted  in  constructive  larceny  of  the 
2 


18 

rags  that  covered  the  persons  of  female  slaves,  whose  attempt 
at  escape  they  permitted  or  assisted. 

We  deem  the  principle  of  the  law  for  the  recapture  of 
fugitives,  as  thus  expounded,  therefore,  unjust,  unconstitu 
tional,  and  immoral ;  and  thus,  while  patriotism  withholds  its 
approbation,  the  consciences  of  our  people  condemn  it. 

You  will  say  that  these  convictions  of  ours  are  disloyal, 
{jrant  it  for  the  sake  of  argument.  They  are,  nevertheless, 
honest ;  and  the  law  is  to  be  executed  among  us,  not  among 
you ;  not  by  us,  but  by  the  Federal  authority.  Has  any  Gov 
ernment  ever  succeeded  in  changing  the  moral  convictions  of  its 
subjects  by  force  1  But  these  convictions  imply  no  disloyalty. 
We  reverence  the  Constitution,  although  we  perceive  this  defect, 
just  as  we  acknowledge  the  splendor  and  the  power  of  the  sun, 
although  its  surface  is  tarnished  with  here  and  there  an  opaque 
spot. 

Your  Constitution  and  laws  convert  hospitality  to  the  refugee 
from  the  most  degrading  oppression  on  earth  into  a  crime,  but 
all  mankind  except  you  esteem  that  hospitality  a  virtue.  The 
right  of  extradition  of  a  fugitive  from  justice  is  not  admitted  by 
the  law  of  nature  and  of  nations,  but  rests  in  voluntary  com 
pacts.  I  know  of  only  two  compacts  found  in  diplomatic 
history  that  admitted  EXTRADITION  OF  SLAVES.  Here  is  one  of 
them.  It  is  found  in  a  treaty  of  peace  made  between  Alexander, 
Comnenus,  and  Leontine,  Greek  Emperors  at  Constantinople, 
and  Oleg,  King  of  Russia,  in  the  year  902,  and  is  in  these 
words  : 

"  If  a  Russian  slave  take  flight,  or  even  if  he  is  carried  away  by  any  one 
under  pretence  of  having  been  bought,  his  master  shall  have  the  right  and 
power  to  pursue  him,  and  hunt  for  and  capture  him  wherever  he  shall  be 
found;  and  any  person  who  shall  oppose  the  master  in  the  execution  of 
this  right  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  violating  this  treaty,  and  be  punished 
accordingly." 

This  was  in  the  year  of  Grace  902,  in  the  period  called  the 
"  Dark  Ages,"  and  the  contracting  Powers  were  despotisms. 
And  here  is  the  other  : 

"  No  person  held  to  service  or  labor  in  one  State,  under  the  laws  thereof, 
escaping  into  another,  shall,  in  consequence  of  any  law  or  regulation  therein, 
be  discharged  from  such  service  or  labor,  but  shall  be  delivered  up,  on  claim 
of  the  party  to  whom  such  service  or  labor  is  due." 


19 

This  is  from  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  in  1787, 
and  the  parties  were  the  republican  States  of  this  Union.  The 
law  of  nations  disavows  such  compacts ;  the  law  of  nature, 
written  on  the  hearts  and  consciences  of  freemen,  repudiates 
them.  Armed  power  could  not  enforce  them,  because  there  is 
no  public  conscience  to  sustain  them.  I  know  that  there  are 
laws  of  various  sorts  which  regulate  the  conduct  of  men.  There 
are  constitutions  and  statutes,  codes  mercantile  and  codes  civil ; 
but  when  we  are  legislating  for  States,  especially  when  we  are 
founding  States,  all  these  laws  must  be  brought  to  the  standard 
of  the  laws  of  God,  and  must  be  tried  by  that  standard, 
and  must  stand  or  fall  by  it.  This  principle  was  happily 
explained  by  one  of  the  most  distinguished  political  philosophers 
of  England  in  these  emphatic  words  : 

"  There  is  but  one  law  for  all,  namely,  that  law  which  governs  all  law, 
the  law  of  our  Creator,  the  law  of  humanity,  justice,  equity,  the  law  of 
nature  and  of  nations.  So  far  as  any  laws  fortify  this  primeval  law,  and 
give  it  more  precision,  more  energy,  more  effect,  by  their  declarations,  such 
laws  enter  into  the  sanctuary  and  participate  in  the  sacredness  of  its  char 
acter  ;  but  the  man  who  quotes  as  precedents  the  abuses  of  tyrants  and 
robbers,  pollutes  the  very  fountains  of  justice,  destroys  the  foundations  of 
all  law,  and  therefore  removes  the  only  safeguard  against  evil  men,  whether 
governors  or  governed  ;  the  guard  which  prevents  governors  from  becom 
ing  tyrants,  and  the  governed  from  becoming  rebels." 

There  was  deep  philosophy  in  the  confession  of  an  eminent 
English  judge.  When  he  had  condemned  a  young  woman  to 
death,  under  the  late  sanguinary  code  of  his  country,  for  her 
first  petty  theft,  she  fell  down  dead  at  his  feet :  "I  seem 
to  myself,"  said  he,  "  to  have  been  pronouncing  sentence,  not 
against  the  prisoner,  but  against  the  law  itself.'7 

To  conclude  on  this  point.  We  are  not  slaveholders.  We 
cannot,  in  our  judgment,  be  either  true  Christians  or  real  free 
men,  if  we  impose  on  another  a  chain  that  we  defy  all  human 
power  to  fasten  on  ourselves.  You  believe  and  think  otherwise, 
and  doubtless  with  equal  sincerity.  We  judge  you  not,  and 
He  alone  who  ordained  the  conscience  of  man  and  its  laws  of 
action  can  judge  us.  Do  we,  then,  in  this  conflict  of  opinion, 
demand  of  you  an  unreasonable  thing  in  asking  that,  since  you 
will  have  property  that  can  and  will  exercise  human  powers  to 
effect  its  escape,  you  shall  be  your  own  police,  and  in  acting 
among  us  as  such  you  shall  conform  to  principles  indispensable 


20 

to  the  security  of  admitted  rights  of  freemen  7  If  you  will  have 
this  law  executed,  you  must  alleviate,  not  increase,  its  rigors. 

Another  feature  in  most  of  these  plans  of  compromise  is  a  bill 
of  peace  for  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia ;  and  this  bill 
of  peace  we  cannot  grant.  We  of  the  free  States  are,  equally 
with  you  of  the  slave  States,  responsible  for  the  existence  of 
slavery  in  this  District,  the  field  exclusively  of  our  common 
legislation.  I  regret  that,  as  yet,  I  see  little  reason  to  hope 
that  a  majority  in  favor  of  emancipation  exists  here.  The 
Legislature  of  New  York,  from  whom,  with  great  deference,  I 
dissent,  seems  willing  to  accept  now  the  extinction  of  the  slave 
trade,  and  waive  emancipation.  But  we  shall  assume  the  whole 
responsibility  if  we  stipulate  not  to  exercise  the  power  hereafter 
when  a  majority  shall  be  obtained.  Nor  will  the  plea  with 
which  you  would  furnish  us  be  of  any  avail.  If  I  could  under 
stand  so  mysterious  a  paradox  myself,  I  never  should  be  able  to 
explain  to  the  apprehension  of  the  people  whom  I  represent 
how  it  was  that  an  absolute  and  express  power  to  legislate  in 
all  cases  over  the  District  of  Columbia  was  embarrassed  and 
defeated  by  an  implied  condition  not  to  legislate  for  the  abolition 
of  slavery  in  this  District.  Sir,  I  shall  vote  for  that  measure,  and 
am  willing  to  appropriate  any  means  necessary  to  carry  it  into 
execution.  And,  if  I  shall  be  asked  what  I  did  to  embellish 
the  capital  of  my  country,  I  will  point  to  her  freedmen,  and  say,, 
these  are  the  monuments  of  my  munificence ! 

If  I  was  willing  to  advance  a  cause  that  I  deem  sacred  by 
disingenuous  means,  I  would  advise  you  to  adopt  those  means  of 
compromise  which  I  have  thus  examined.  The  echo  is  not 
quicker  in  its  response  than  would  be  that  loud  and  universal 
cry  of  repeal,  that  would  not  die  away  until  the  habeas  corpus 
was  secured  to  the  alleged  fugitive  from  bondage,  and  the  sym 
metry  of  the  free  institutions  of  the  capital  was  perfected. 

I  apply  the  same  observations  to  the  proposition  for  a  waiver 
of  the  Proviso  of  Freedom  in  Territorial  charters.  Thus  far 
you  have  only  direct  popular  action  in  favor  of  that  Ordinance, 
and  there  seems  even  to  be  a  partial  disposition  to  await  the 
action  of  the  people  of  the  new  Territories,  as  we  have  compul- 
sorily  waited  for  it  in  California.  But  I  must  tell  you,  never 
theless,  in  candor  and  in  plainness,  that  the  spirit  of  the  people 
of  the  free  States  is  set  upon  a  spring  that  rises  with  the 


21 

pressure  put  upon  it.  That  spring,  if  pressed  too  hard,  will 
give  a  recoil  that  will  not  leave  here  one  servant  who  knew  his 
master's  will,  and  did  it  not. 

You  will  say  that  this  implies  violence.  Not  at  all.  It 
implies  only  peaceful,  lawful,  constitutional,  customary  action. 
I  cannot  too  strongly  express  my  surprise  that  those  who  insist 
that  the  people  of  the  slave  States  cannot  be  held  back  from 
remedies  outside  of  the  Constitution,  should  so  far  misunder 
stand  us  of  the  free  States  as  to  suppose  we  would  not  exercise 
our  constitutional  rights  to  sustain  the  policy  which  we  deem 
just  and  beneficent. 

I  come  now  to  notice  the  suggested  compromise  of  the 
boundary  between  Texas  and  New  Mexico.  This  is  a  judicial 
question  in  its  nature,  or  at  least  a  question  of  legal  right  and 
title.  If  it  is  to  be  compromised  at  all,  it  is  due  to  the  two 
parties,  and  to  national  dignity  as  well  as  to  justice,  that  it  be 
kept  separate  from  compromises  proceeding  on  the  ground  of 
expediency,  and  be  settled  by  itself  alone. 

I  take  this  occasion  to  say,  that  while  I  do  not  intend  to 
•discuss  the  questions  alluded  to  in  this  connection  by  the  honor 
able  and  distinguished  Senator  from  Massachusetts,  I  am  not 
able  to  agree  with  him  in  regard  to  the  alleged  obligation  of 
Congress  to  admit  four  new  slave  States,  to  be  formed  in  the 
State  of  Texas.  There  are  several  questions  arising  out  of 
that  subject,  upon  which  I  am  not  prepared  to  decide  now,  and 
which  I  desire  to  reserve  for  future  consideration.  One  of 
these  is,  whether  the  Article  of  Annexation  does  really  deprive 
Congress  of  the  right  to  exercise  its  choice  in  regard  to  the  sub 
division  of  Texas  into  four  additional  States.  It  seems  to  me 
by  no  means  so  plain  a  question  as  the  Senator  from  Massachu 
setts  assumed,  and  that  it  must  be  left  to  remain  an  open 
question,  as  it  is  a  great  question,  whether  Congress  is  not  a 
party  whose  future  consent  is  necessary  to  the  formation  of  new 
States  out  of  Texas. 

MR.  WEBSTER.  Supposing  Congress  to  have  the  author 
ity  to  fix  the  number,  and  time  of  election,  and  apportionment 
of  Representatives,  &c.,  the  question  is,  whether,  if  new  States 
are  formed  out  of  Texas,  to  come  into  this  Union,  there  is  not  a 
solemn  pledge  by  law  that  they  have  a  right  to  come  in  as  slave 
States  1 


22 

MR.  SEWARD.  When  the  States  are  once  formed,  they 
have  the  right  to  come  in  as  free  or  slave  States,  according  to 
their  own  choice  ;  but  what  I  insist  is,  that  they  cannot  be 
formed  at  all  without  the  consent  of  Congress,  to  be  hereafter 
given,  which  consent  Congress  is  not  obliged  to  give.  But  I 
pass  that  question  for  the  present,  and  proceed  to  say  that  I 
am  not  prepared  to  admit  that  the  Article  of  the  Annexation  of 
Texas  is  itself  constitutional.  I  find  no  authority  in  the  Con 
stitution  of  the  United  States  for  the  annexation  of  foreign 
countries  by  a  resolution  of  Congress,  and  no  power  adequate  to 
that  purpose  but  the  treaty-making  power  of  the  President  and 
the  Senate.  Entertaining  this  view,  I  must  insist  that  the 
constitutionality  of  the  annexation  of  Texas  itself  shall  be 
cleared  up  before  I  can  agree  to  the  admission  of  any  new 
States  to  be  formed  within  Texas. 

MR.  FOOTE.  Did  not  I  hear  the  Senator  observe  that  he 
would  admit  California,  whether  slavery  was  or  was  not  pre 
cluded  from  these  Territories  ? 

MR.  SEWARD.  I  said  I  would  have  voted  for  the  admis 
sion  of  California  even  as  a  slave  State,  under  the  extraordinary 
circumstances  which  I  have  before  distinctly  described.  I  say 
that  now  ;  but  I  say  also,  that  before  I  would  agree  to  admit 
any  more  States  from  Texas,  the  circumstances  which  render 
such  act  necessary  must  be  shown,  and  must  be  such  as  to 
determine  my  obligation  to  do  so ;  and  that  is  precisely  what  I 
insist  cannot  be  settled  now.  It  must  be  left  for  those  to  whom 
the  responsibility  will  belong. 

Mr.  President,  I  understand,  and  I  am  happy  in  understand 
ing,  that  I  agree  with  the  honorable  Senator  from  Massachu 
setts,  that  there  is  no  obligation  upon  Congress  to  admit  four 
new  slave  States  out  of  Texas,  but  that  Congress  has  reserved 
her  right  to  say  whether  those  States  shall  be  formed  and  ad 
mitted  or  not.  I  shall  rely  on  that  reservation.  I  shall  vote 
to  admit  no  more  slave  States,  unless  under  circumstances 
absolutely  compulsory — and  no  such  case  is  now  foreseen. 

MR.  WEBSTER.  What  I  said  was,  that  if  the  States 
hereafter  to  be  made  out  of  Texas  choose  to  come  in  as  slave 
States,  they  have  a  right  so  to  do. 

MR.  SEWARD.  My  position  is,  that  they  have  not  a  right 
to  come  in  at  all,  if  Congress  rejects  their  institutions.  The 


23 

subdivision  of  Texas  is  a  matter  optional  with  both  parties,, 
Texas  and  the  United  States. 

MR.  WEBSTER.  Does  the  honorable  Senator  mean  to  say 
that  Congress  can  hereafter  decide  whether  they  shall  be  slave 
or  free  States  1 

MR.  SEWARD.  I  mean  to  say  that  Congress  can  here 
after  decide  whether  any  States,  slave  or  free,  can  be  framed 
out  of  Texas.  If  they  should  never  be  framed  out  of  Texas, 
they  never  could  be  admitted. 

.Another  objection  arises  out  of  the  principle  on  which  the 
demand  for  compromise  rests.  That  principle  assumes  a  clas 
sification  of  the  States  as  Northern  and  Southern  States,  as  it 
is  expressed  by  the  honorable  Senator  from  South  Carolina, 
[Mr.  CALHOUN,]  but  into  slave  States  and  free  States,  as 
more  directly  expressed  by  the  honorable  Senator  from  Georgia, 
[Mr.  BERRIEN.]  The  argument  is,  that  the  States  are  sever 
ally  equal,  and  that  these  two  classes  were  equal  at  the  first, 
and  that  the  Constitution  was  founded  on  that  equilibrium; 
that  the  States  being  equal,  and  the  classes  of  the  States  being 
equal  in  rights,  they  are  to  be  regarded  as  constituting  an  asso 
ciation  in  which  each  State,  and  each  of  these  classes  of  States, 
respectively,  contribute  in  due  proportions ;  that  the  new  Ter 
ritories  are  a  common  acquisition,  and  the  people  of  these 
several  States  and  classes  of  States  have  an  equal  right  to  par 
ticipate  in  them,  respectively  ;  that  the  right  of  the  people  of 
the  slave  States  to  emigrate  to  the  Territories  with  their  slaves 
as  property  is  necessary  to  afford  such  a  participation  on  their 
part,  inasmuch  as  the  people  of  the  free  States  emigrate  into 
the  same  Territories  with  their  property.  And  the  argument 
deduces  from  this  right  the  principle  that,  if  Congress  exclude 
slavery  from  any  part  of  this  new  domain,  it  would  be  only  just 
to  set  off  a  portion  of  the  domain — some  say  south  of  36°  30' , 
others  south  of  34° — which  should  be  regarded  at  least  as  free 
to  slavery,  and  to  be  organized  into  slave  States. 

Argument  ingenious  and  subtle,  declamation  earnest  and  bold, 
and  persuasion  gentle  and  winning  as  the  voice  of  the  turtle 
dove  when  it  is  heard  in  the  land,  all  alike  and  altogether  have 
failed  to  convince  me  of  the  soundness  of  this  principle  of  the 
proposed  compromise,  or  of  any  one  of  the  propositions  on  which 
it  is  attempted  to  be  established. 


24 

How  is  the  original  equality  of  the  States  proved?  It  rests 
on  a  syllogism  of  Vattel,  as  follows :  All  men  are  equal  by  the 
law  of  nature  and  of  nations.  But  States  are  only  lawful 
aggregations  of  individual  men,  who  severally  are  equal.  There 
fore,  States  are  equal  in  natural  rights.  All  this  is  just  and 
sound.  But  assuming  the  same  premises,  to  wit,  that  all  men 
are  equal  by  the  law  of  nature  and  of  nations,  the  right  of 
property  in  slaves  falls  to  the  ground ;  for  one  who  is  equal  to 
another  cannot  be  the  owner  or  property  of  that  other.  But 
you  answer,  that  the  Constitution  recognises  property  in  slaves. 
It  would  be  sufficient,  then,  to  reply,  that  this  constitutional 
recognition  must  be  void,  because  it  is  repugnant  to  the  law  of 
nature  and  of  nations.  But  I  deny  that  the  Constitution  recog 
nises  property  in  man.  I  submit,  on  the  other  hand,  most 
respectfully,  that  the  Constitution  not  merely  does  not  affirm 
that  principle,  but,  on  the  contrary,  altogether  excludes  it. 

The  Constitution  does  not  expressly  affirm  anything  on  the 
subject ;  all  that  it  contains  is  two  incidental  allusions  to  slaves. 
These  are,  first,  in  the  provision  establishing  a  ratio  of  repre 
sentation  and  taxation ;  and,  secondly,  in  the  provision  relating 
to  fugitives  from  labor.  In  both  cases,  the  Constitution  design 
edly  mentions  slaves,  not  as  slaves,  much  less  as  chattels,  but 
as  persons.  That  this  recognition  of  them  as  persons  was 
designed  is  historically  known,  and  I  think  was  never  denied. 
I  give  only  two  of  the  manifold  proofs.  First,  JOHN  JAY,  in 
the  Federalist^  says  : 

"  Let  the  case  of  the  slaves  be  considered,  as  it  is  in  truth,  a  peculiar 
one.  Let  the  compromising  expedient  of  the  Constitution  be  mutually 
adopted  which  regards  them  as  inJiabitants,  but  as  debased  below  the  equal 
level  of  free  inhabitants,  which  regards  the  slave  as  divested  of  two-fifths  of 
the  man." 

Yes,  sir,  of  two-fifths,  but  of  only  two-fifths ;  leaving  still 
three-fifths  ;  leaving  the  slave  still  an  inhabitant,  a  person,  a 
living,  breathing,  moving,  reasoning,  immortal  man. 

The  other  proof  is  from  the  Debates  in  the  Convention.  It 
is  brief,  and  I  think  instructive  : 

"AUGUST  28,  1787. 

"  Mr.  BUTLER  and  Mr.  PINCKNEY  moved  to  require  fugitive  slaves  and 
servants  to  be  delivered  up  like  convicts. 

"  Mr.  WILSON.  This  would  oblige  the  Executive  of  the  State  to  do  it  at 
public  expense. 


25 

"  Mr.  SHERMAN  saw  no  more  propriety  in  the  public  seizing  and  surren 
dering  a  slave  or  a  servant  than  a  horse. 

"  Mr.  BUTLER  withdrew  his  proposition,  in  order  that  some  particular 
provision  might  be  made,  apart  from  this  article." 
"AUGUST  29,  1787. 

"  Mr.  BUTLER  moved  to  insert  after  article  15 :  *  If  any  person  bound  to 
service  or  labor  in  any  of  the  United  States  shall  escape  into  another  State, 
he  or  she  shall  not  be  discharged  from  such  service  or  labor  in  consequence 
of  any  regulation  subsisting  in  the  State  to  which  they  escape,  but  shall  be 
delivered  up  to  the  person  justly  claiming  their  service  or  labor.'  ): 

"After  the  engrossment,  September  15,  page  550,  article  4,  section  2, 
the  third  paragraph,  the  term  ' legally'  was  struck  out,  and  the  words 
'f  under  the  laws  thereof  inserted  after  the  word  '  State/  in  compliance 
with  the  wishes  of  some  who  thought  the  term  '  legal '  equivocal,  and 
favoring  the  idea  that  slavery  was  legal  in  a  moral  view." — Madison  De 
bates,  pp.  487,  492. 

I  deem  it  established,  then,  that  the  Constitution  does  not 
recognise  property  in  man,  but  leaves  that  question,  as  between 
the  States,  to  the  law  of  nature  and  of  nations.  That  law,  as 
expounded  by  Vattel,  is  founded  on  the  reason  of  things.  When 
God  had  created  the  earth,  with  its  wonderful  adaptations,  He 
gave  dominion  over  it  to  Man,  absolute  human  dominion.  The 
title  of  that  dominion,  thus  bestowed,  would  have  been  incom 
plete,  if  the  Lord  of  all  terrestrial  things  could  himself  have 
been  the  property  of  his  fellow-man. 

The  right  to  have  a  slave  implies  the  right  in  some  one  to 
make  the  slave  ;  that  right  must  be  equal  and  mutual,  and  this 
would  resolve  society  into  a  state  of  perpetual  war.  But  if  we 
grant  the  original  equality  of  the  States,  and  grant  also  the  con 
stitutional  recognition  of  slaves  as  property,  still  the  argument 
we  are  considering  fails.  Because  the  States  are  not  parties  to 
the  Constitution  as  States  ;  it  is  the  Constitution  of  the  People 
of  the  United  States. 

But  even  if  the  States  continue  as  States,  they  surrendered 
their  equality  as  States,  and  submitted  themselves  to  the  sway 
of  the  numerical  majority,  with  qualifications  or  checks  ;  first, 
of  the  representation  of  three-fifths  of  slaves  in  the  ratio  of 
representation  and  taxation  ;  and,  secondly,  of  the  equal  repre 
sentation  of  States  in  the  Senate. 

The  proposition  of  an  established  classification  of  States  as 
slave  States  and  free  States,  as  insisted  on  by  some,  and  into 
Northern  and  Southern,  as  maintained  by  others,  seems  to  me 


26 

purely  imaginary,  and  of  course  the  supposed  equilibrium  of 
of  those  classes  a  mere  conceit.  This  must  be  so,  because, 
when  the  Constitution  was  adopted,  twelve  of  the  thirteen  States 
were  slave  States,  and  so  there  was  no  equilibrium.  And  so  as 
to  the  classification  of  States  as  Northern  States  and  Southern 
States.  It  is  the  maintenance  of  slavery  by  law  in  a  State,  not 
parallels  of  latitude,  that  makes  it  a  Southern  State;  and  the 
absence  of  this,  that  makes  it  a  Northern  State.  And  so  all 
the  States,  save  one,  were  Southern  States,  and  there  was  no 
equilibrium.  But  the  Constitution  was  made  not  only  for 
Southern  and  Northern  States,  but  for  States  neither  Northern 
nor  Southern — the  Western  States,  their  coming  in  being  fore 
seen  and  provided  for. 

It  needs  little  argument  to  show  that  the  idea  of  a  joint  stock 
association,  or  a  copartnership,  as  applicable  even  by  its  analo 
gies  to  the  United  States,  is  erroneous,  with  all  the  conse 
quences  fancifully  deduced  from  it.  The  United  States  are  a 
political  state,  or  organized  society,  whose  end  is  government, 
for  the  security,  welfare,  and  happiness  of  all  who  live  under 
its  protection.  The  theory  I  am  combating  reduces  the  objects 
of  government  to  the  mere  spoils  of  conquest.  Contrary  to  a 
theory  so  debasing,  the  preamble  of  the  Constitution  not  only 
asserts  the  sovereignty  to  be,  not  in  the  States,  but  in  the 
People,  but  also  promulgates  the  objects  of  the  Constitution : 

"  We,  the  people  of  the  United  States,  in  order  to  form  a  more  perfect 
union,  establish  justice,  insure  domestic  tranquillity,  provide  for  the  common 
defence,  promote  the  GENERAL  WELFARE,  and  secure  the  blessings  of  liberty, 
do  ordain  and  establish  this  Constitution." 

Objects  sublime  and  benevolent !  They  exclude  the  very 
idea  of  conquests,  to  be  either  divided  among  States  or  even 
enjoyed  by  them,  for  the  purpose  of  securing,  not  the  blessings 
of  liberty,  but  the  evils  of  slavery.  There  is  a  novelty  in  the 
principle  of  the  compromise  which  condemns  it.  Simultaneously 
with  the  establishment  of  the  Constitution,  Virginia  ceded  to  the 
United  States  her  domain,  which  then  extended  to  the  Missis 
sippi,  and  was  even  claimed  to  extend  to  the  Pacific  Ocean. 
Congress  accepted  it,  and  unanimously  devoted  the  domain  to- 
Freedom,  in  the  language  from  which  the  Ordinance  now  so 
severely  condemned  was  borrowed.  Five  States  have  already 
been  organized  on  this  domain,  from  all  of  which,  in  pursuance 


27 

of  that  Ordinance,  slavery  is  excluded.  How  did  it  happen  that 
this  theory  of  the  equality  of  States,  of  the  classification  of 
States,  of  the  equilibrium  of  States,  of  the  title  of  the  States  to 
common  enjoyment  of  the  domain,  or  to  an  equitable  and  just 
partition  between  them,  was  never  promulgated,  nor  even 
dreamed  of,  by  the  slave  States,  when  they  unanimously  con 
sented  to  that  Ordinance  1 

There  is  another  aspect  of  the  principle  of  compromise  which 
deserves  consideration.  It  assumes  that  slavery,  if  not  the 
only  institution  in  a  slave  State,  is  at  least  a  ruling  institution, 
and  that  this  characteristic  is  recognised  by  the  Constitution. 
But  slavery  is  only  one  of  many  institutions  there.  Freedom 
is  equally  an  institution  there.  Slavery  is  only  a  temporary, 
accidental,  partial  and  incongruous  one.  Freedom,  on  the  con 
trary,  is  a  perpetual,  organic,  universal  one,  in  harmony  with 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  The  slaveholder  himself 
stands  under  the  protection  of  the  latter,  in  common  with  all  the 
free  citizens  of  the  State.  But  it  is,  moreover,  an  indispensable 
institution.  You  may  separate  slavery  from  South  Carolina, 
and  the  State  will  still  remain ;  but  if  you  subvert  Freedom 
there,  the  State  will  cease  to  exist.  But  the  principle  of  this 
compromise  gives  complete  ascendency  in  the  slave  States, 
and  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  to  the  subordinate, 
accidental,  and  incongruous,  institution  over  its  paramount 
antagonist.  To  reduce  this  claim  for  slavery  to  an  absurdity,, 
it  is  only  necessary  to  add  that  there  are  only  two  States  in 
which  slaves  are  a  majority,  and  not  one  in  which  the  slave 
holders  are  not  a  very  disproportionate  minority. 

But  there  is  yet  another  aspect  in  which  this  principle  must 
be  examined.  It  regards  the  domain  only  as  a  possession,  to  be 
enjoyed  either  in  common  or  by  partition  by  the  citizens  of  the 
old  States.  It  is  true,  indeed,  that  the  national  domain  is  ours. 
It  is  true  it  was  acquired  by  the  valor  and  with  the  wealth  of 
the  whole  nation.  But  we  hold,  nevertheless,  no  arbitrary 
power  over  it.  We  hold  no  arbitrary  authority  over  anything, 
whether  acquired  lawfully  or  seized  by  usurpation.  The  Con 
stitution  regulates  our  stewardship  ;  the  Constitution  devotes 
the  domain  to  union,  to  justice,  to  defence,  to  welfare,  and  to 
liberty. 

But   there   is    a   higher   law   than   the  Constitution,   which 


28 

regulates  our  authority  over  the  domain,  and  devotes  it  to  the 
same  noble  purposes.  The  territory  is  a  part,  no  inconsidera 
ble  part,  of  the  common  heritage  of  mankind,  bestowed  upon 
them  by  the  Creator  of  the  Universe.  We  are  his  stewards, 
and  must  so  discharge  our  trust  as  to  secure  in  the  highest  at 
tainable  degree  their  happiness.  How  momentous  that  trust  is, 
we  may  learn  from  the  instructions  of  the  founder  of  modern 
philosophy : 

"  No  man,"  says  Bacon,  "  can  by  care-taking,  as  the  Scripture  saith, 
add  a  cubit  to  his  stature  in  this  little  model  of  a  man's  body;  but,  in  the 
great  frame  of  kingdoms  and  commonwealths,  it  is  in  the  power  of  princes 
or  estates  to  add  amplitude  and  greatness  to  their  kingdoms.  For,  by  intro 
ducing  such  ordinances,  constitutions,  and  customs,  as  are  wise,  they  may 
sow  greatness  to  their  posterity  and  successors.  But  these  things  are  com 
monly  not  observed,  but  left  to  take  their  chance." 

This  is  a  State,  and  we  are  deliberating  for  it,  just  as  our 
fathers  deliberated  in  establishing  the  institutions  we  enjoy. 
Whatever  superiority  there  is  in  our  condition  and  hopes  over 
those  of  any  other  "  kingdom  "  or  "  estate  "  is  due  to  the  fortu 
nate  circumstance  that  our  ancestors  did  not  leave  things  to 
"  take  their  chance,"  but  that  they  "  added  amplitude  and 
greatness "  to  our  commonwealth  "  by  introducing  such  ordi 
nances,  constitutions,  and  customs,  as  were  wise."  We  in  our 
turn  have  succeeded  to  the  same  responsibilities,  and  we  cannot 
approach  the  duty  before  us  wisely  or  justly,  except  we  raise 
ourselves  to  the  great  consideration  of  how  we  can  most  cer 
tainly  "  sow  greatness  to  our  posterity  and  successors." 

And  now  the  simple,  bold,  and  even  awful  question  which 
presents  itself  to  us  is  this  :  Shall  we,  who  are  founding  institu 
tions,  social  and  political,  for  countless  millions  ;  shall  we,  who 
know  by  experience  the  wise  and  the  just,  and  are  free  to  choose 
them,  and  to  reject  the  erroneous  and  unjust ;  shall  we  estab 
lish  human  bondage,  or  permit  it  by  our  sufferance  to  be  estab 
lished  ?  Sir,  our  forefathers  would  not  have  hesitated  an  hour. 
They  found  slavery  existing  here,  and  they  left  it  only  because 
they  could  not  remove  it.  There  is  not  only  no  free  State 
which  would  now  establish  it,  but  there  is  no  slave  State, 
which,  if  it  had  had  the  free  alternative  as  we  now  have,  would 
have  founded  slavery.  Indeed,  our  revolutionary  predecessors 
had  precisely  the  same  question  before  them  in  establishing  an 


29 

organic  law  under  which  the  States  of  Ohio,  Indiana,  Michigan,, 
Illinois,  and  Wisconsin,  have  since  come  into  the  Union,  and 
they  solemnly  repudiated  and  excluded  slavery  from  those 
States  forever.  I  confess  that  the  most  alarming  evidence  of 
our  degeneracy  which  has  yet  been  given  is  found  in  the  fact 
that  we  even  debate  such  a  question. 

Sir,  there  is  no  Christian  nation,  thus  free  to  choose  as  we 
are,  which  would  establish  slavery.  I  speak  on  due  considera 
tion,  because  Britain,  France,  and  Mexico,  have  abolished 
slavery,  and  all  other  European  States  are  preparing  to  abolish 
it  as  speedily  as  they  can.  We  cannot  establish  slavery,, 
because  there  are  certain  elements  of  the  security,  welfare,  and 
greatness  of  nations,  which  we  all  admit  or  ought  to  admit,  and 
recognise  as  essential ;  and  these  are  the  security  of  natural 
rights,  the  diffusion  of  knowledge,  and  the  freedom  of  industry.. 
Slavery  is  incompatible  with  all  of  these,  and  just  in  proportion 
to  the  extent  that  it  prevails  and  controls  in  any  republican 
State,  just  to  that  extent  it  subverts  the  principle  of  democracy, 
and  converts  the  State  into  an  aristocracy  or  a  despotism.  I  will 
not  offend  sensibilities  by  drawing  my  proofs  from  the  slave 
States  existing  among  ourselves.  But  I  will  draw  them  from 
the  greatest  of  the  European  slave  States. 
The  population  of  Russia  in  Europe,  in  1844,  was  54,251,000 
Of  these  were  serfs  -  53,500,000 

The  residue  nobles,  clergy,  and  merchants,  &c.    -          751,000 

The  Imperial  Government  abandons  the  control  over  the 
fifty-three  and  a  half  millions  to  their  owners ;  and  these  owners,, 
included  in  the  751,000,  are  thus  a  privileged  class,  or  aristoc 
racy.  If  ever  the  Government  interferes  at  all  with  the  serfs, 
who  are  the  only  laboring  population,  it  is  by  edicts  designed  to 
abridge  their  opportunities  of  education,  and  thus  continue  their 
debasement.  What  was  the  origin  of  this  system  1  Conquest,, 
in  which  the  captivity  of  the  conquered  was  made  perpetual  and 
hereditary.  This,  it  seems  to  me,  is  identical  with  American 
slavery,  only  at  one  and  the  same  time  exaggerated  by  the 
greater  disproportion  between  the  privileged  classes  and  the 
slaves  in  their  respective  numbers,  and  yet  relieved  of  the  un- 
happiest  feature  of  American  slavery,  the  distinction  of  castes.. 


What  but  this  renders  Russia  at  once  the  most  arbitrary  des 
potism  and  the  most  barbarous  State  in  Europe  1  And  what  is 
its  effect,  but  industry  comparatively  profitless,  and  sedition, 
not  occasional  and  partial,  but  chronic  and  pervading  the 
Empire.  I  speak  of  slavery  not  in  the  language  of  fancy,  but 
in  the  language  of  philosophy.  Montesquieu  remarked  upon 
the  proposition  to  introduce  slavery  into  France,  that  the 
demand  for  slavery  was  the  demand  of  luxury  and  corruption, 
and  not  the  demand  of  patriotism.  Of  all  slavery,  African 
slavery  is  the  worst,  for  it  combines  practically  the  features  of 
what  is  distinguished  as  real  slavery  or  serfdom  with  the  per 
sonal  slavery  known  in  the  oriental  world.  Its  domestic 
features  lead  to  vice,  while  its  political  features  render  it  inju 
rious  and  dangerous  to  the  State. 

I  cannot  stop  to  debate  long  with  those  who  maintain  that 
slavery  is  itself  practically  economical  and  humane.  I  might 
be  content  with  saying  that  there  are  some  axioms  in  political 
science  that  a  statesman  or  a  founder  of  States  may  adopt, 
especially  in  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  and  that 
among  those  axioms  are  these  :  That  all  men  are  created  equal, 
and  have  inalienable  rights  of  life,  liberty,  and  the  choice  of 
pursuits  of  happiness ;  that  knowledge  promotes  virtue,  and 
righteousness  exalteth  a  nation ;  that  freedom  is  -preferable  to 
slavery,  and  that  democratic  Governments,  where  they  can  be 
maintained  by  acquiescence,  without  force,  are  preferable  to 
institutions  exercising  arbitrary  and  irresponsible  power. 

It  remains  only  to  remark  that  our  own  experience  has 
proved  the  dangerous  influence  and  tendency  of  slavery.  All 
our  apprehensions  of  dangers,  present  and  future,  begin  and 
end  with  slavery.  If  slavery,  limited  as  it  yet  is,  now  threatens 
to  subvert  the  Constitution,  how  can  we,  as  wise  and  prudent 
statesmen,  enlarge  its  boundaries  and  increase  its  influence, 
and  thus  increase  already  impending  dangers  1  Whether,  then, 
I  regard  merely  the  welfare  of  the  future  inhabitants  of  the 
new  Territories,  or  the  security  and  welfare  of  the  whole  people 
of  the  United  States,  or  the  welfare  of  the  whole  family  of 
mankind,  I  cannot  consent  to  introduce  slavery  into  any  part  of 
this  continent  which  is  now  exempt  from  what  seems  to  me  so 
great  an  evil.  These  are  my  reasons  for  declining  to  compro 
mise  the  question  relating  to  slavery  as  a  condition  of  the 
admission  of  California. 


31 

In  acting  upon  an  occasion  so  grave  as  this,  a  respectful 
consideration  is  due  to  the  arguments,  founded  on  extraneous 
considerations,  of  Senators  who  commend  a  course  different 
from  that  which  I  have  preferred.  The  first  of  these  argu 
ments  is,  that  Congress  has  no  power  to  legislate  on  the  subject 
of  slavery  within  the  Territories. 

Sir,  Congress  may  admit  new  States;  and  since  Congress 
may  admit,  it  follows  that  Congress  may  reject  new  States. 
The  discretion  of  Congress  in  admitting  is  absolute,  except  that, 
when  admitted,  the  State  must  be  a  republican  State,  and 
must  be  a  STATE  :  that  is,  it  shall  have  the  constitutional  form 
.and  powers  of  a  State.  But  the  greater  includes  the  less,  and 
therefore  Congress  may  impose  conditions  of  admission  not 
inconsistent  with  those  fundamental  powers  and  forms.  Bounda 
ries  are  such.  The  reservation  of  the  public  domain  is  such. 
The  right  to  divide  is  such.  The  Ordinance  excluding  slavery 
is  such  a  condition.  The  organization  of  a  Territory  is  ancil 
lary  or  preliminary ;  it  is  the  inchoate,  the  initiative  act  of 
admission,  and  is  performed  under  the  clause  granting  the 
powers  necessary  to  execute  the  express  powers  of  the  Con 
stitution. 

This  power  comes  from  the  treaty-making  power  also,  and  I 
think  it  well  traced  to  the  power  to  make  needful  rules  and  reg 
ulations  concerning  the  public  domain.  But  this  question  is 
not  a  material  one  now  ;  the  power  is  here  to  be  exercised. 
The  question  now  is,  How  is  it  to  be  exercised'?  not  whether 
we  shall  exercise  it  at  all,  however  derived.  And  the  right  to 
regulate  property,  to  administer  justice  in  regard  to  property, 
is  assumed  in  every  Territorial  charter.  If  we  have  the  power 
to  legislate  concerning  property,  we  have  the  power  to  legislate 
concerning  personal  rights.  Freedom  is  a  personal  right;  and 
Congress,  being  the  supreme  legislature,  has  the  same  right  in 
regard  to  property  and  personal  rights  in  Territories  that  the 
States  would  have  if  organized. 

The  next  of  this  class  of  arguments  is,  that  the  inhibition  of 
slavery  in  the  new  Territories  is  unnecessary  ;  and  when  I 
come  to  this  question,  I  encounter  the  loss  of  many  who  lead  in 
favor  of  admitting  California.  I  had  hoped,  some  time  ago, 
that  upon  the  vastly  important  question  of  inhibiting  slavery  in 
the  new  Territories,  we  should  have  had  the  aid  especially  of 


32 

the  distinguished  Senator  from  Missouri,  [Mr.  BENTON;]  and 
when  he  announced  his  opposition  to  that  measure  I  was 
induced  to  exclaim — 

Cur  in  theatrum,  Cato  severe.,  venisti? 

An  ideo,  tantum,,  veneras  ut  exires  ? 

But,  sir,  I  have  no  right  to  complain.  The  Senator  is 
crowning  a  life  of  eminent  public  service  by  a  heroic  and  mag 
nanimous  act  in  bringing  California  into  the  Union.  Grateful 
to  him  for  this,  I  leave  it  to  himself  to  determine  how  far  con 
siderations  of  human  freedom  shall  govern  the  course  which  he 
thinks  proper  to  pursue. 

The  argument  is,  that  the  Proviso  is  unnecessary.  I  answer, 
there,  then,  can  be  no  error  in  insisting  upon  it.  But  why  is 
it  unnecessary?  It  is  said,  first,  by  reason  of  climate.  I 
answer,  if  this  be  so,  why  do  not  the  representatives  of  the 
slave  States  concede  the  Proviso  ?  They  deny  that  the  climate 
prevents  the  introduction  of  slavery.  Then  I  will  leave 
nothing  to  a  contingency.  But,  in  truth,  I  think  the  weight  of 
argument  is  against  the  proposition.  Is  there  any  climate 
where  slavery  has  not  existed  ?  It  has  prevailed  all  over 
Europe,  from  sunny  Italy  to  bleak  England,  and  is  existing 
now,  stronger  than  in  any  other  land,  in  ice-bound  Russia. 
But  it  will  be  replied,  that  this  is  not  African  slavery.  I 
rejoin,  that  only  makes  the  case  the  stronger.  If  this  vigorous 
Saxon  race  of  ours  was  reduced  to  slavery  while  it  retained  the 
courage  of  semi-barbarism  in  its  own  high  northern  latitude, 
what  security  does  climate  afford  against  the  transplantation  of 
the  more  gentle,  more  docile,  and  already  enslaved  and  debased 
African  to  the  genial  climate  of  New  Mexico  and  Eastern 
California  ? 

Sir,  there  is  no  climate  uncongenial  to  slavery.  It  is  true  it 
is  less  productive  than  free  labor  in  many  northern  countries. 
But  so  it  is  less  productive  than  free  white  labor  in  even  trop 
ical  climates.  Labor  is  in  quick  demand  in  all  new  countries. 
Slave  labor  is  cheaper  than  free  labor,  and  it  would  go  first  into 
new  regions  ;  and  wherever  it  goes  it  brings  labor  into  dishonor, 
and  therefore  free  white  labor  avoids  competition  with  it.  Sir,, 
I  might  rely  on  climate  if  I  had  not  been  born  in  a  land  where 
slavery  existed — and  this  land  was  all  of  it  north  of  the  fortieth 
parallel  of  latitude ;  and  if  I  did  not  know  the  struggle  it  has 


33 

cost,  and  which  is  yet  going  on,  to  get  complete  relief  from  the 
institution  and  its  baleful  consequences.  I  desire  to  propound 
this  question  to  those  who  are  now  in  favor  of  dispensing  with 
the  Wilmot  Proviso :  Was  the  Ordinance  of  1787  necessary 
or  not?  Necessary,  we  all  agree.  It  has  received  too  many 
elaborate  eulogiums  to  be  now  decried  as  an  idle  and  superfluous 
thing.  And  yet  that  Ordinance  extended  the  inhibition  of 
slavery  from  the  thirty-seventh  to  the  fortieth  parallel  of  north 
latitude.  And  now  we  are  told  that  the  inhibition  named  is 
unnecessary  anywhere  north  of  36°  30'  !  We  are  told  that 
we  may  rely  upon  the  laws  of  God,  which  prohibit  slave  labor 
north  of  that  line,  and  that  it  is  absurd  to  re-enact  the  laws 
of  God.  Sir,  there  is  no  human  enactment  which  is  just  that 
is  not  a  re-enactment  of  the  law  of  God.  The  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  and  the  Constitutions  of  all  the  States  are 
full  of  such  re-enactments.  Wherever  I  find  a  law  of  God  or 
a  law  of  nature  disregarded,  or  in  danger  of  being  disregarded, 
there  I  shall  vote  to  reaffirm  it,  with  all  the  sanction  of  the  civil 
authority.  But  I  find  no  authority  for  the  position  that  climate 
prevents  slavery  anywhere.  It  is  the  indolence  of  mankind  in 
any  climate,  and  not  any  natural  necessity,  that  introduces 
slavery  in  any  climate. 

I  shall  dwell  only  very  briefly  on  the  argument  derived  from 
the  Mexican  laws.  The  proposition,  that  those  laws  must 
remain  in  force  until  altered  by  laws  of  our  own,  is  satisfactory; 
and  so  is  the  proposition  that  those  Mexican  laws  abolished  and 
continue  to  prohibit  slavery.  And  still  I  deem  an  enactment 
by  ourselves  wise,  and  even  necessary.  Both  of  the  propo 
sitions  I  have  stated  are  denied  with  just  as  much  confidence 
by  Southern  statesmen  and  jurists  as  they  are  affirmed  by 
those  of  the  free  States.  The  population  of  the  new  Terri 
tories  is  rapidly  becoming  an  American  one,  to  whom  the 
Mexican  code  will  seem  a  foreign  one,  entitled  to  little  deference 
or  obedience. 

Slavery  has  never  obtained  anywhere  by  express  legislative 
authority,  but  always  by  trampling  down  laws  higher  than  any 
mere  municipal  laws — the  laws  of  nature  and  of  nations. 
There  can  be  no  oppression  in  superadding  the  sanction  of 
Congress  to  the  authority  which  is  so  weak  and  so  vehemently 
questioned.  And  there  is  some  possibility,  if  not  probability,. 
3 


34 

that  the  institution  might  obtain  a  foothold  surreptitiously,  if  it 
should  not  be  absolutely  forbidden  by  our  own  authority. 

What  is  insisted  upon,  therefore,  is  not  a  mere  abstraction 
or  a  mere  sentiment,  as  is  contended  by  those  who  waive  the 
Proviso.  And  what  is  conclusive  on  the  subject  is,  that  it  is 
conceded  on  all  hands  that  the  effect  of  insisting  on  it  is  to  pre 
vent  the  intrusion  of  slavery  into  the  region  to  which  it  is 
proposed  to  apply  it. 

It  is  insisted  that  the  diffusion  of  slavery  will  not  increase  its 
evils.  The  argument  seems  to  me  merely  specious,  and  quite 
unsound.  I  desire  to  propose  one  or  two  questions  in  reply 
to  it.  Is  slavery  stronger  or  weaker  in  these  United  States, 
from  its  diffusion  into  Missouri  ?  Is  slavery  weaker  or  stronger 
in  these  United  States,  from  the  exclusion  of  it  from  the  North 
west  Territory  !  The  answers  to  these  questions  will  settle  the 
whole  controversy. 

And  this  brings  me  to  the  great  and  all-absorbing  argument 
that  the  Union  is  in  danger  of  being  dissolved,  and  that  it  can 
only  be  saved  by  compromise.  I  do  not  know  what  I  would  not 
-do  to  save  the  Union  ;  and  therefore  I  shall  bestow  upon  this 
subject  a  very  deliberate  consideration. 

I  do  not  overlook  the  fact  that  the  entire  delegation  from  the 
slave  States,  although  they  differ  in  regard  to  the  details  of 
compromise  proposed,  and  perhaps  in  regard  to  the  exact  circum 
stances  of  the  crisis,  seem  to  concur  in  this  momentous  warning. 
Nor  do  I  doubt  at  all  the  patriotic  devotion  to  the  Union  which 
is  expressed  by  those  from  whom  this  warning  proceeds. 
And  yet,  sir,  although  such  warnings  have  been  uttered  with 
impassioned  solemnity  in  my  hearing  every  day  for  near  three 
months,  my  confidence  in  the  Union  remains  unshaken.  I  think 
they  are  to  be  received  with  no  inconsiderable  distrust,  because 
they  are  uttered  under  the  influence  of  a  controlling  interest  to 
be  secured,  a  paramount  object  to  be  gained  ;  and  that  is  an 
equilibrium  of  powrer  in  the  Republic.  I  think  they  are  to  be 
received  with  even  more  distrust,  because,  with  the  most  pro 
found  respect,  they  are  uttered  under  an  obviously  high  excite 
ment.  Nor  is  that  excitement  an  unnatural  one.  It  is  a  law 
of  our  nature  that  the  passions  disturb  the  reason  and  judgment 
just  in  proportion  to  the  importance  of  the  occasion,  and  the 
consequent  necessity  for  calmness  and  candor.  I  think  they 


35 

are  to  be  distrusted,  because  there  is  a  diversity  of  opinion  in 
regard  to  the  nature  and  operation  of  this  excitement.  The 
Senators  from  some  States  say  that  it  has  brought  all  parties 
in  their  own  region  into  unanimity.  The  honorable  Senator 
from  Kentucky  [Mr.  CLAY]  says  that  the  danger  lies  in  the 
violence  of  party  spirit,  and  refers  us  for  proof  to  the 
difficulties  which  attended  the  organization  of  the  House  of 
Representatives . 

Sir,  in  my  humble  judgment,  it  is  not  the  fierce  conflict  of 
parties  that  we  are  seeing  and  hearing ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  it 
is  the  agony  of  distracted  parties — a  convulsion  resulting  from 
the  too  narrow  foundations  of  both  the  great  parties,  and  of  all 
parties — foundations  laid  in  compromises  of  natural  justice  and 
of  human  liberty.  A  question,  a  moral  question,  transcending 
the  too  narrow  creeds  of  parties,  has  arisen;  the  public  con 
science  expands  with  it,  and  the  green  withes  of  party  associa 
tions  give  way  and  break,  and  fall  off  from  it.  No,  sir ;  it  is 
not  the  State  that  is  dying  of  the  fever  of  party  spirit.  It  is 
merely  a  paralysis  of  parties,  premonitory  however  of  their 
restoration,  with  new  elements  of  health  and  vigor  to  be 
imbibed  from  that  spirit  of  the  age  which  is  so  justly  called 
Progress. 

Nor  is  the  evil  that  of  unlicensed,  irregular,  and  turbulent 
faction.  We  are  told  that  twenty  Legislatures  are  in  session, 
burning  like  furnaces,  heating  and  inflaming  the  popular  pas 
sions.  But  these  twenty  Legislatures  are  constitutional  fur 
naces.  They  are  performing  their  customary  functions,  im 
parting  healthful  heat  and  vitality  while  within  their  constitu 
tional  jurisdiction.  If  they  rage  beyond  its  limits,  the  popular 
passions  of  this  country  are  not  at  all,  I  think,  in  danger  of 
being  inflamed  to  excess.  No,  sir ;  let  none  of  these  fires  be 
extinguished.  Forever  let  them  burn  and  blaze.  They  are 
neither  ominous  meteors  nor  baleful  comets,  but  planets ;  and 
bright  and  intense  as  their  heat  may  be,  it  is  their  native  tem 
perature,  and  they  must  still  obey  the  law  which,  by  attraction 
toward  this  solar  centre,  holds  them  in  their  spheres. 

I  see  nothing  of  that  conflict  between  the  Southern  and 
Northern  States,  or  between  their  representative  bodies,  which 
seems  to  be  on  all  sides  of  me  assumed.  Not  a  word  of  menace, 
not  a  word  of  anger,  not  an  intemperate  word,  has  been  uttered 


36 

in  the  Northern  Legislatures.  They  firmly  but  calmly  assert 
their  convictions ;  but  at  the  same  time  they  assert  their 
unqualified  consent  to  submit  to  the  common  arbiter,  and  for 
weal  or  wo  abide  the  fortunes  of  the  Union. 

What  if  there  be  less  of  moderation  in  the  Legislatures  of 
the  South  ?  It  only  indicates  on  which  side  the  balance  is 
inclining,  and  that  the  decision  of  the  momentous  question  is 
near  at  hand.  I  agree  with  those  who  say  that  there  can  be  no 
peaceful  dissolution — no  dissolution  of  the  Union  by  the  seces 
sion  of  States  ;  but  that  disunion,  dissolution,  happen  when  it 
may,  will  and  must  be  revolution.  I  discover  no  omens  of 
revolution.  The  predictions  of  the  political  astrologers  do  not 
agree  as  to  the  time  or  manner  in  which  it  is  to  occur.  Accord 
ing  to  the  authority  of  the  honorable  Senator  from  Alabama, 
[Mr.  CLEMENS,]  the  event  has  already  happened,  and  the 
Union  is  now  in  ruins.  According  to  the  honorable  and 
distinguished  Senator  from  South  Carolina,  [Mr.  CALHOUN,]  it 
is  not  to  be  immediate,  but  to  be  developed  by  time. 

What  are  the  omens  to  which  our  attention  is  directed  1  I 
see  nothing  but  a  broad  difference  of  opinion  here,  and  the 
excitement  consequent  upon  it. 

I  have  observed  that  revolutions  which  begin  in  the  palace 
seldom  go  beyond  the  palace  walls,  and  they  affect  only  the 
dynasty  which  reigns  there.  This  revolution,  if  I  understand 
it,  began  in  this  Senate  chamber  a  year  ago,  when  the  represent 
atives  from  the  Southern  States  assembled  here  and  addressed 
their  constituents  on  what  were  called  the  aggressions  of  the 
Northern  States.  No  revolution  was  designed  at  that  time, 
and  all  that  has  happened  since  is  the  return  to  Congress  of 
legislative  resolutions,  which  seem  to  me  to  be  only  conventional 
responses  to  the  address  which  emanated  from  the  Capitol. 

Sir,  in  any  condition  of  society  there  can  be  no  revolution 
without  a  cause,  an  adequate  cause.  What  cause  exists  here  I 
We  are  admitting  a  new  State  ;  but  there  is  nothing  new  in 
that :  we  have  already  admitted  seventeen  before.  But  it  is 
said  that  the  slave  States  are  in  danger  of  losing  political 
power  by  the  admission  of  the  new  State.  Well,  sir,  is  there 
anything  new  in  that?  The  slave  States  have  always  been 
losing  political  power,  and  they  always  will  be  while  they  have 
any  to  lose.  At  first,  twelve  of  the  thirteen  States  were  slave 


3T 

States  ;  now  only  fifteen  out  of  the  thirty  are  slave  States. 
Moreover,  the  change  is  constitutionally  made,  and  the  Govern 
ment  was  constructed  so  as  to  permit  changes  of  the  balance  of 
power,  in  obedience  to  changes  of  the  forces  of  the  body  politic. 
Danton  used  to  say,  "It's  all  well  while  the  people  cry  Danton 
and  Robespierre ;  but  wo  for  me  if  ever  the  people  learn 
to  say,  Robespierre  and  Danton  !  "  That  is  all  of  it,  sir.  The 
people  have  been  accustomed  to  say,  "  the  South  and  the 
North  ; "  they  are  only  beginning  now  to  say,  "  the  North  and 
the  South." 

Sir,  those  who  would  alarm  us  with  the  terrors  of  revolution 
have  not  well  considered  the  structure  of  this  Government,  and 
the  organization  of  its  forces.  It  is  a  Democracy  of  property 
and  persons,  with  a  fair  approximation  towards  universal  educa 
tion,  and  operating  by  means  of  universal  suffrage.  The  con 
stituent  members  of  this  Democracy  are  the  only  persons  who 
could  subvert  it ;  and  they  are  not  the  citizens  of  a  metropolis 
like  Paris,  or  of  a  region  subjected  to  the  influences  of  a 
metropolis  like  France  ;  but  they  are  husbandmen,  dispersed 
over  this  broad  land,  on  the  mountain  and  on  the  plain,  and  on 
the  prairie,  from  the  Ocean  to  the  Rocky  Mountains,  and  from 
the  great  Lakes  to  the  Gulf;  and  this  people  are  now,  while  we 
are  discussing  their  imaginary  danger,  at  peace  and  in  their 
happy  homes,  as  unconcerned  and  uninformed  of  their  peril 
as  they  are  of  events  occurring  in  the  moon.  Nor  have  the 
alarmists  made  due  allowance  in  their  calculations  for  the  influ 
ence  of  conservative  reaction,  strong  in  any  Government,  and 
irresistible  in  a  rural  Republic,  operating  by  universal  suffrage. 
That  principle  of  reaction  is  due  to  the  force  of  the  habits  of 
acquiescence  and  loyalty  among  the  people.  No  man  better 
understood  this  principle  than  MACHIAVELLI,  who  has  told  us, 
in  regard  to  factions,  that  "  no  safe  reliance  can  be  placed  in 
the  force  of  nature  and  the  bravery  of  words,  except  it  be  cor 
roborate  by  custom."  Do  the  alarmists  remember  that  this 
Government  has  stood  sixty  years  already  without  exacting  one 
drop  of  blood? — that  this  Government  has  stood  sixty  years, 
and  treason  is  an  obsolete  crime  ?  That  day,  I  trust,  is  far 
off  when  the  fountains  of  popular  contentment  shall  be  broken 
up  ;  but,  whenever  it  shall  come,  it  will  bring  forth  a  higher 
illustration  than  has  ever  yet  been  given  of  the  excellence  of 


38 

the  Democratic  system  ;  for  then  it  will  be  seen  how  calmly, 
how  firmly,  how  nobly,  a  great  people  can  act  in  preserving 
their  Constitution  ;  whom  "  love  of  country  moveth,  example 
teacheth,  company  comforteth,  emulation  quickeneth,  and  glory 
exalteth." 

When  the  founders  of  the  new  Republic  of  the  South  come  to 
draw  over  the  face  of  this  empire,  along  or  between  its  parallels 
of  latitude  or  longitude,  their  ominous  lines  of  dismemberment, 
soon  to  be  broadly  and  deeply  shaded  with  fraternal  blood,  they 
may  come  to  the  discovery  then,  if  not  before,  that  the  natural 
and  even  the  political  connections  of  the  region  embraced  forbid 
such  a  partition ;  that  its  possible  divisions  are  not  Northern 
and  Southern  at  all,  but  Eastern  and  Western,  Atlantic  and 
Pacific  ;  and  that  Nature  and  Commerce  have  allied  indissolubly 
for  weal  and  wo  the  seceders  and  those  from  whom  they  are  to 
be  separated  ;  that  while  they  would  rush  into  a  civil  war  to 
restore  an  imaginary  equilibrium  between  the  Northern  States 
and  the  Southern  States,  a  new  equilibrium  has  taken  its  place, 
in  which  all  those  States  are  on  the  one  side,  and  the  boundless 
West  is  on  the  other. 

Sir,  when  the  founders  of  the  Republic  of  the  South  come  to 
draw  those  fearful  lines,  they  will  indicate  what  portions  of  the 
continent  are  to  be  broken  off  from  their  connection  with  the 
Atlantic,  through  the  St.  Lawrence,  the  Hudson,  the  Delaware, 
the  Potomac,  and  the  Mississippi ;  what  portion  of  this  people 
are  to  be  denied  the  use  of  the  lakes,  the  railroads,  and  the 
canals,  now  constituting  common  and  customary  avenues  of 
travel,  trade,  and  social  intercourse  ;  what  families  and  kindred 
are  to  be  separated,  and  converted  into  enemies ;  and  what 
States  are  to  be  the  scenes  of  perpetual  border  warfare,  aggra 
vated  by  interminable  horrors  of  servile  insurrection.  When 
those  portentous  lines  shall  be  drawn,  they  will  disclose  what 
portion  of  this  people  is  to  retain  the  army  and  the  navy,  and 
the  flag  of  so  many  victories;  and  on  the  other  hand,  what 
portion  of  the  people  is  to  be  subjected  to  new  and  onerous 
imposts,  direct  taxes,  and  forced  loans,  and  conscriptions,  to 
maintain  an  opposing  army,  an  opposing  navy,  and  the  new  and 
hateful  banner  of  sedition.  Then  the  projectors  of  the  new 
Republic  of  the  South  will  meet  the  question — and  they  may 
well  prepare  now  to  answer  it — What  is  all  this  for  ?  What 


39 

intolerable  wrong,  what  unfraternal  injustice,  have  rendered 
these  calamities  unavoidable  ?  What  gain  will  this  unnatural 
revolution  bring  to  us  1  The  answer  will  be  :  All  this  is  done 
to  secure  the  institution  of  African  slavery. 

And  then,  if  not  before,  the  question  will  be  discussed,  What 
is  this  institution  of  slavery,  that  it  should  cause  these  unpar 
alleled  sacrifices  and  these  disastrous  afflictions  1  And  this  will 
be  the  answer :  When  the  Spaniards,  few  in  number,  discov 
ered  the  Western  Indies  and  adjacent  continental  America,  they 
needed  labor  to  draw  forth  from  its  virgin  stores  some  speedy 
return  to  the  cupidity  of  the  court  and  the  bankers  of  Madrid. 
They  enslaved  the  indolent,  inoffensive,  and  confiding  natives, 
who  perished  by  thousands,  and  even  by  millions,  under  that 
new  and  unnatural  bondage.  A  humane  ecclesiastic  advised 
the  substitution  of  Africans  reduced  to  captivity  in  their  native 
wars,  and  a  pious  princess  adopted  the  suggestion,  with  a  dis 
pensation  from  the  Head  of  the  Church,  granted  on  the  ground 
of  the  prescriptive  right  of  the  Christian  to  enslave  the  heathen, 
to  effect  his  conversion.  The  colonists  of  North  America,  inno 
cent  in  their  unconsciousness  of  wrong,  encouraged  the  slave 
traffic,  and  thus  the  labor  of  subduing  their  territory  devolved 
chiefly  upon  the  African  race.  A  happy  conjuncture  brought 
on  an  awakening  of  the  conscience,  of  mankind  to  the  injustice 
of  slavery,  simultaneously  with  the  independence  of  the  Colonies. 
Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  Rhode  Island,  New  Hampshire, 
Vermont,  New  York,  New  Jersey,  and  Pennsylvania,  welcomed 
and  embraced  the  spirit  of  universal  emancipation.  Re 
nouncing  luxury,  they  secured  influence  and  empire.  But  the 
States  of  the  South,  misled  by  a  new  and  profitable  culture, 
elected  to  maintain  and  perpetuate  slavey  ;  and  thus,  choosing 
luxury,  they  lost  power  and  empire.  BflDCTOft  Libran 

When  this  answer  shall  be  given,  it  will  appear  that  the 
question  of  dissolving  the  Union  is  a  complex  question  ;  that  it 
embraces  the  fearful  issue  whether  the  Union  shall  stand,  and 
slavery,  under  the  steady,  peaceful  action  of  moral,  social,  and 
political  causes,  be  removed  by  gradual,  voluntary  effort,  and 
with  compensation,  or  whether  the  Union  shall  be  dissolved,  and 
civil  wars  ensue,  bringing  on  violent  but  complete  and  imme 
diate  emancipation.  We  are  now  arrived  at  that  stage  of  our 
national  progress  when  that  crisis  can  be  foreseen,  when  we 


40 

must  foresee  it.  It  is  directly  before  us.  Its  shadow  is  upon 
us.  It  darkens  the  legislative  halls,  the  temples  of  worship, 
and  the  home  and  the  hearth.  Every  question,  political,  civil, 
or  ecclesiastical,  however  foreign  to  the  subject  of  slavery,  brings 
up  slavery  as  an  incident,  and  the  incident  supplants  the  prin 
cipal  question.  We  hear  of  nothing  but  slavery,  and  we  can 
talk  of  nothing  but  slavery.  And  now,  it  seems  to  me  that  all 
our  difficulties,  embarrassments,  and  dangers,  arise,  not  out  of 
unlawful  perversions  of  the  question  of  slavery,  as  some  suppose, 
but  from  the  want  of  moral  courage  to  meet  this  question  of 
emancipation  as  we  ought.  Consequently,  AVC  hear  on  one  side 
demands — absurd,  indeed,  but  yet  unceasing — for  an  immediate 
and  unconditional  abolition  of  slavery — as  if  any  power,  except 
the  people  of  the  slave  States,  could  abolish  it,  and  as  if  they 
could  be  moved  to  abolish  it  by  merely  sounding  the  trumpet 
violently  and  proclaiming  emancipation,  while  the  institution  is 
intenvoven  with  all  their  social  and  political  interests,  constitu 
tions,  and  customs. 

On  the  other  hand,  our  statesmen  say  that  "  slavery  has 
always  existed,  and,  for  aught  they  know  or  can  do,  it  always 
must  exist.  God  permitted  it,  and  he  alone  can  indicate  the 
way  to  remove  it."  As  if  the  Supreme  Creator,  after  giving 
us  the  instructions  of  his  providence  and  revelation  for  the 
illumination  of  our  minds  and  consciences,  did  not  leave  us  in 
all  human  transactions,  with  due  invocations  of  his  Holy  Spirit, 
to  seek  out  his  will  and  execute  it  for  ourselves. 

Here,  then,  is  the  point  of  my  separation  from  both  of  these 
parties.  I  feel  assured  that  slavery  must  give  way,  and  will 
give  way,  to  the  salutary  instructions  of  economy,  and  to  the 
ripening  influences  of  humanity ;  that  emancipation  is  inevitable, 
and  is  near  ;  that  it  may  be  hastened  or  hindered ;  and  that 
whether  it  be  peaceful  or  violent,  depends  upon  the  question 
whether  it  be  hastened  or  hindered ;  that  all  measures  which 
fortify  slavery  or  extend  it,  tend  to  the  consummation  of  vio 
lence  ;  all  that  check  its  extension  and  abate  its  strength,  tend 
to  its  peaceful  extirpation.  But  I  will  adopt  none  but  lawful, 
constitutional,  and  peaceful  means,  to  secure  even  that  end  ; 
and  none  such  can  I  or  will  I  forego.  Nor  do  I  know  any  im 
portant  or  responsible  body  that  proposes  to  do  more  than  this. 
No  free  State  claims  to  extend  its  legislation  into  a  slave  State. 


41 

None  claims  that  Congress  shall  usurp  power  to  abolish  slavery 
in  the  slave  States.  None  claims  that  any  violent,  unconstitu 
tional,  or  unlawful  measure  shall  be  embraced.  And,  on  the 
other  hand,  if  we  offer  no  scheme  or  plan  for  the  adoption  of  the 
slave  States,  with  the  assent  and  co-operation  of  Congress,  it  is 
only  because  the  slave  States  are  unwilling  as  yet  to  receive 
such  suggestions,  or  even  to  entertain  the  question  of  emancipa 
tion  in  any  form. 

But,  sir,  I  will  take  this  occasion  to  say  that,  while  I  cannot 
agree  with  the  honorable  Senator  from  Massachusetts  in  pro 
posing  to  devote  eighty  millions  of  dollars  to  remove  the  free 
colored  population  from  the  slave  States,  and  thus,  as  it  appears 
to  me,  fortify  slavery,  there  is  no  reasonable  limit  to  which  I  am 
not  willing  to  go  in  applying  the  national  treasures  to  effect  the 
peaceful,  voluntary  removal  of  slavery  itself. 

I  have  thus  endeavored  to  show  that  there  is  not  now,  and 
there  is  not  likely  to  occur,  any  adequate  cause  for  revolution 
in  regard  to  slavery.  But  you  reply  that,  nevertheless,  you 
must  have  guaranties  ;  and  the  first  one  is  for  the  surrender  of 
fugitives  from  labor.  That  guaranty  you  cannot  have,  as  I 
have  already  shown,  because  you  cannot  roll  back  the  tide  of 
social  progress.  You  must  be  content  with  what  you  have.  If 
you  wage  war  against  us,  you  can,  at  most,  only  conquer  us, 
and  then  all  you  can  get  will  be  a  treaty,  and  that  you  have 
already. 

But  you  insist  on  a  guaranty  against  the  abolition  of  slavery 
in  the  District  of  Columbia,  or  war.  Well,  when  you  shall 
have  declared  war  against  us,  what  shall  hinder  us  from  imme 
diately  decreeing  that  slavery  shall  cease  within  the  national 
capital  ? 

You  say  that  you  will  not  submit  to  the  exclusion  of  slaves 
from  the  new  Territories.  What  will  you  gain  by  resistance? 
Liberty  follows  the  sword,  although  her  sway  is  one  of  peace 
and  beneficence.  Can  you  propagate  slavery  then  by  the 
sword  ? 

You  insist  that  you  cannot  submit  to  the  freedom  with  which 
slavery  is  discussed  in  the  free  States.  Will  war — a  war  for 
slavery — arrest  or  even  moderate  that  discussion  1  No,  sir ; 
that  discussion  will  not  cease ;  war  would  only  inflame  it  to  a 
greater  height.  It  is  a  part  of  the  eternal  conflict  between 


42 

truth  arid  error — between  mind  and  physical  force — the  conflict 
of  man  against  the  obstacles  which  oppose  his  way  to  an  ulti 
mate  and  glorious  destiny.  It  will  go  on  until  you  shall  termi 
nate  it  in  the  only  way  in  which  any  State  or  Nation  has  ever 
terminated  it — by  yielding  to  it — yielding  in  your  own  time,  and 
in  your  own  manner,  indeed,  but  nevertheless  yielding  to  the 
progress  of  emancipation.  You  will  do  this,  sooner  or  later, 
whatever  may  be  your  opinion  now ;  because  nations  which 
were  prudent  and  humane,  and  wise  as  you  are,  have  done  so 
already. 

Sir,  the  slave  States  have  no  reason  to  fear  that  this  inevi 
table  change  will  go  too  far  or  too  fast  for  their  safety  or  wel 
fare.  It  cannot  well  go  too  fast  or  too  far,  if  the  only  alternative 
is  a  war  of  races. 

But  it  cannot  go  too  fast.  Slavery  has  a  reliable  and  accom 
modating  ally  in  a  party  in  the  free  States,  which,  though  it 
claims  to  be,  and  doubtless  is  in  many  respects,  a  party  of  pro 
gress,  finds  its  sole  security  for  its  political  power  in  the  sup 
port  and  aid  of  slavery  in  the  slave  States.  Of  course,  I  do  not 
include  in  that  party  those  who  are  now  co-operating  in  main 
taining  the  cause  of  Freedom  against  Slavery.  I  am  not  of  that 
party  of  progress  which  in  the  North  thus  lends  its  support  to 
slavery.  But  it  is  only  just  and  candid  that  I  should  bear 
witness  to  its  fidelity  to  the  interests  of  slavery. 

Slavery  has,  moreover,  a  more  natural  alliance  with  the 
aristocracy  of  the  North  and  with  the  aristocracy  of  Europe. 
So  long  as  Slavery  shall  possess  the  cotton-fields,  the  sugar- 
fields,  and  the  rice-fields  of  the  world,  so  long  will  Commerce 
and  Capital  yield  it  toleration  and  sympathy.  Emancipation 
is  a  democratic  revolution.  It  is  Capital  that  arrests  all 
democratic  revolutions.  It  was  Capital  that  in  a  single  year 
rolled  back  the  tide  of  revolution  from  the  base  of  the  Carpa 
thian  mountains,  across  the  Danube  and  the  Rhine,  into  the 
streets  of  Paris.  It  is  Capital  that  is  rapidly  rolling  back  the 
throne  of  Napoleon  into  the  chambers  of  the  Tuileries. 

Slavery  has  a  guaranty  still  stronger  than  these  in  the 
prejudices  of  caste  and  color,  which  induce  even  large  major 
ities  in  all  the  free  States  to  regard  sympathy  with  the  slave 
as  an  act  of  unmanly  humiliation  and  self-abasement,  although 
philosophy  meekly  expresses  her  distrust  of  the  asserted. 


43 

natural  superiority  of  the  white  race,  and  confidently  denies 
that  such  a  superiority,  if  justly  claimed,  could  give  a  title  to 
oppression. 

There  remains  one  more  guaranty — one  that  has  seldom  failed 
you,  and  will  seldom  fail  you  hereafter.  New  States  cling  in 
closer  alliance  than  older  ones  to  the  Federal  power.  The 
concentration  of  the  slave  power  enables  you  for  long  periods 
to  control  the  Federal  Government  with  the  aid  of  the  new 
States.  I  do  not  know  the  sentiments  of  the  representatives 
of  California ;  but,  my  word  for  it,  if  they  should  be  admitted 
on  this  floor  to-day,  against  your  most  obstinate  opposition,  they 
would,  on  all  questions  really  affecting  your  interests,  be  found 
at  your  side. 

With  these  alliances  to  break  the  force  of  emancipation,  there 
will  be  no  disunion  and  no  secession.  I  do  not  say  that  there 
may  not  be  disturbance,  though  I  do  not  apprehend  even 
that.  Absolute  regularity  and  order  in  administration  have 
not  yet  been  established  in  any  Government,  and  unbroken  pop 
ular  tranquillity  has  not  yet  been  attained  in  even  the  most 
advanced  condition  of  human  society.  The  machinery  of  our 
system  is  necessarily  complex.  A  pivot  may  fall  out  here,  a 
lever  may  be  displaced  there,  a  wheel  may  fall  out  of  gearing 
elsewhere,  but  the  machinery  will  soon  recover  its  regularity, 
and  move  on  just  as  before,  with  even  better  adaptation  and 
adjustment  to  overcome  new  obstructions. 

There  are  many  well-disposed  persons  who  are  alarmed  at 
the  occurrence  of  any  such  disturbance.  The  failure  of  a  legis 
lative  body  to  organize  is  to  their  apprehension  a  fearful  omen, 
and  an  extra-constitutional  assemblage  to  consult  upon  public 
affairs  is  with  them  cause  for  desperation.  Even  Senators 
speak  of  the  Union  as  if  it  existed  only  by  consent,  and,  as  it 
seems  to  be  implied,  by  the  assent  of  the  Legislatures  of  the 
States.  On  the  contrary,  the  Union  was  not  founded  in  volun 
tary  choice,  nor  does  it  exist  by  voluntary  consent. 

A  Union  was  proposed  to  the  colonies  by  Franklin  and 
others,  in  1754 ;  but  such  was  their  aversion  to  an  abridgment 
of  their  own  importance,  respectively,  that  it  was  rejected  even 
under  the  pressure  of  a  disastrous  invasion  by  France. 

A  Union  of  choice  was  proposed  to  the  colonies  in  1775  ;  but 
so  strong  was  their  opposition  that  they  went  through  and 


44 

through  the  war  of  Independence  without  having  established 
more  than  a  mere  council  of  consultation. 

But  with  Independence  came  enlarged  interests  of  agricul 
ture — absolutely  new  interests  of  manufactures — interests  of 
commerce,  of  fisheries,  of  navigation,  of  a  common  domain,  of 
common  debts,  of  common  revenues  and  taxation,  of  the  admin 
istration  of  justice,  of  public  defence,  of  public  honor  ;  in  short, 
interests  of  common  nationality  and  sovereignty — interests 
which  at  last  compelled  the  adoption  of  a  more  perfect  Union — 
a  National  Government. 

The  genius,  talents,  and  learning  of  Hamilton,  of  Jay,  and  of 
Madison,  surpassing  perhaps  the  intellectual  power  ever 
exerted  before  for  the  establishment  of  a  Government,  combined 
with  the  serene  but  mighty  influence  of  Washington,  were  only 
sufficient  to  secure  the  reluctant  adoption  of  the  Constitution 
that  is  now  the  object  of  all  our  affections  and  of  the  hopes  of 
mankind.  No  wonder  that  the  conflicts  in  which  that  Consti 
tution  was  born,  and  the  almost  desponding  solemnity  of  Wash 
ington,  in  his  Farewell  Address,  impressed  his  countrymen  and 
mankind  with  a  profound  distrust  of  its  perpetuity  1  No 
wonder  that  while  the  murmurs  of  that  day  are  yet  ringing  in 
our  ears,  we  cherish  that  distrust,  with  pious  reverence,  as  a 
national  and  patriotic  sentiment ! 

But  it  is  time  to  prevent  the  abuses  of  that  sentiment.  It 
is  time  to  shake  off  that  fear,  for  fear  is  always  weakness.  It 
is  time  to  remember  that  Government,  even  when  it  arises  by 
chance  or  accident,  and  is  administered  capriciously  and  oppres 
sively,  is  ever  the  strongest  of  all  human  institutions,  surviving 
many  social  and  ecclesiastical  changes  and  convulsions  ;  and  that 
this  Constitution  of  ours  has  all  the  inherent  strength  common 
to  Governments  in  general,  and  added  to  them  has  also  the 
solidity  and  firmness  derived  from  broader  and  deeeper  founda 
tions  in  national  justice,  and  a  better  civil  adaptation  to 
promote  the  welfare  and  happiness  of  mankind. 

The  Union,  the  creature  of  necessities,  physical,  moral, 
social,  and  political,  endures  by  virtue  of  the  same  necessities  ; 
and  these  necessities  are  stronger  than  when  it  was  produced — 
stronger  by  the  greater  amplitude  of  territory  now  covered  by 
it — stronger  by  the  sixfold  increase  of  the  society  living  under 
its  beneficent  protection — stronger  by  the  augmentation  ten 


45 

thousand  times  of  the  fields,  the  workshops,  the  mines,  and  the 
ships,  of  that  society  ;  of  its  productions  of  the  sea,  of  the 
plough,  of  the  loom,  and  of  the  anvil,  in  their  constant  circle  of 
internal  and  international  exchange — stronger  in  the  long  rivers 
penetrating  regions  before  unknown — stronger  in  all  the  artifi 
cial  roads,  canals,  and  other  channels  and  avenues  essential  not 
only  to  trade  but  to  defence — stronger  in  steam  navigation,  in 
steam  locomotion  on  the  land,  and  in  telegraph  communications, 
unknown  when  the  Constitution  was  adopted — stronger  in  the 
freedom  and  in  the  growing  empire  of  the  seas — stronger  in  the 
element  of  national  honor  in  all  lands,  and  stronger  than  all  in 
the  now  settled  habits  of  veneration  and  affection  for  institutions 
so  stupendous  and  so  useful. 

The  Union,  then,  is,  not  because  merely  that  men  choose  that 
it  shall  be,  but  because  some  Government  must  exist  here,  and 
no  other  Government  than  this  can.  If  it  could  be  dashed  to 
atoms  by  the  whirlwind,  the  lightning,  or  the  earthquake,  to 
day,  it  would  rise  again  in  all  its  just  and  magnificent  propor 
tions  to-morrow. 

This  nation  is  a  globe,  still  accumulating  upon  accumulation^ 
not  a  dissolving  sphere. 

I  have  heard  somewhat  here,  and  almost  for  the  first  time  in 
my  life,  of  divided  allegiance — of  allegiance  to  the  South  and  to 
the  Union — of  allegiance  to  States  severally  and  to  the  Union. 
Sir,  if  sympathies  with  State  emulation  and  pride  of  achieve 
ment  could  be  allowed  to  raise  up  another  sovereign  to  divide 
the  allegiance  of  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  I  might  recog 
nise  the  claims  of  the  State  to  which,  by  birth  and  gratitude,  I 
belong — to  the  State  of  Hamilton  and  Jay,  of  Schuyler,  of  the 
Clintons,  and  of  Fulton — the  State  which,  with  less  than  two 
hundred  miles  of  natural  navigation  connected  with  the  ocean, 
has,  by  her  own  enterprise,  secured  to  herself  the  commerce  of 
the  continent,  and  is  steadily  advancing  to  the  command  of  the 
commerce  of  the  world.  But  for  all  this  I  know  only  one 
country  and  one  sovereign — the  United  States  of  America  and 
the  American  People.  And  such  as  my  allegiance  is,  is  the 
loyalty  of  every  other  citizen  of  the  United  States.  As  I  speak, 
he  will  speak  when  his  time  arrives.  He  knows  no  other 
country  and  no  other  sovereign.  He  has  life,  liberty,  property, 
and  precious  affections,  and  hopes  for  himself  and  for  his  posterity, 


46 

treasured  up  in  the  ark  of  the  Union.  He  knows  as  well  and  feels 
as  strongly  as  I  do  that  this  Government  is  his  own  Government ; 
that  he  is  a  part  of  it ;  that  it  was  established  for  him,  and  that 
it  is  maintained  by  him ;  that  it  is  the  only  truly  wise,  just,  free, 
and  equal  Government  that  has  ever  existed ;  that  no  other  Gov 
ernment  could  be  so  wise,  just,  free,  and  equal ;  and  that  it  is 
safer  and  more  beneficent  than  any  which  time  or  change  could 
bring  into  its  place. 

You  may  tell  me,  sir,  that  although  all  this  may  be  true,  yet 
the  trial  of  faction  has  not  yet  been  made.  Sir,  if  the  trial  of 
faction  has  not  been  made,  it  has  not  been  because  faction  has  not 
always  existed,  and  has  not  always  menaced  a  trial,  but  because 
faction  could  find  no  fulcrum  on  which  to  place  the  lever  to 
subvert  the  Union,  as  it  can  find  no  fulcrum  now ;  and  in  this  is 
my  confidence.  I  would  not  rashly  provoke  the  trial ;  but  I  will 
not  suffer  a  fear,  which  I  have  not,  to  make  me  compromise  one 
sentiment,  one  principle  of  truth  or-  justice,  to  avert  a  danger 
that  all  experience  teaches  me  is  purely  chimerical.  Let,  then, 
those  who  distrust  the  Union  make  compromises  to  save  it.  I 
shall  not  impeach  their  wisdom,  as  I  certainly  cannot  their 
patriotism  ;  but  indulging  no  such  apprehensions  myself,  I  shall 
vote  for  the  admission  of  California  directly,  without  conditions, 
without  qualifications,  and  without  compromise. 

For  the  vindication  of  that  vote  I  look  not  to  the  verdict  of 
the  passing  hour,  disturbed  as  the  public  mind  now  is  by  con 
flicting  interests  and  passions,  but  to  that  period,  happily  not 
far  distant,  when  the  vast  regions  over  which  we  are  now  legis 
lating  shall  have  received  their  destined  inhabitants. 

While  looking  forward  to  that  day,  its  countless  generations 
seem  to  me  to  be  rising  up  and  passing  in  dim  and  shadowy 
review  before  us ;  and  a  voice  comes  forth  from  their  serried 
ranks,  saying  :  "  Waste  your  treasures  and  your  armies,  if  you 
will ;  raze  your  fortifications  to  the  ground ;  sink  your  navies 
into  the  sea ;  transmit  to  us  even  a  dishonored  name,  if  you 
must ;  but  the  soil  you  hold  in  trust  for  us — give  it  to  us  free. 
You  found  it  free,  and  conquered  it  to  extend  a  better  and  surer 
freedom  over  it.  Whatever  choice  you  have  made  for  your 
selves,  let  us  have  no  partial  freedom ;  let  us  all  be  free  ;  let 
the  reversion  of  your  broad  domain  descend  to  us  unincumbered, 
and  free  from  the  calamities  and  the  sorrows  of  human  bondage." 


